When Fear Becomes a Management Method: The Cost of Toxic Leadership

Behind corporate goals and performance results lie the stories of professionals and families living with the consequences of workplaces where pressure exceeds the boundaries of respect and human dignity.

It is 9:42 p.m. on a Friday. You are sitting at a table in your daughter's favorite Italian restaurant. The reservation was made two weeks earlier, and she had been eagerly looking forward to this evening. The aroma of freshly prepared pasta, the conversations around you, and your family's smiles create one of those simple moments that should remain in your memory.

Until your phone vibrates.

A notification discreetly appears on the screen. It is a message from your manager.

You hesitate for a few seconds but eventually open it. Just a few words: "We need to talk about your participation in today's meeting. Monday morning, first thing."

No explicit threat. No insult. Just a sentence that, in another professional environment, might not raise any concern at all.

But you know what those words can mean.

Your smile quietly fades. You reread the message, try to interpret what was said, and begin mentally reconstructing that afternoon's meeting. Had you made a mistake? Questioned something you shouldn't have? Could your explanation have been interpreted as a challenge to your manager's authority?

Your daughter interrupts your thoughts to ask whether you are enjoying dinner. You say yes, force a smile, and place your phone facedown on the table.

The conversation continues. Your family is still there. So is the restaurant.

But you are no longer fully present.

In just a few seconds, a work-related message has crossed the boundaries of the office and entered a space that should belong exclusively to your personal life.

And perhaps the most disturbing aspect is not the content of that message, but the fact that you are already so familiar with the fear it awakens.

That Friday could have simply marked the end of another workweek. Yet for those who live with unpredictable leadership, the end of the workday does not always mean the end of professional concerns. The body is at home, but the mind continues wandering through hallways, revisiting meetings, and anticipating possible confrontations.

Dinner ends. Your daughter mentions that she would like to return to the restaurant the following month. You agree, although you can barely remember the taste of the meal you just ate. On the way home, you try to participate in the conversation, but one question keeps resurfacing: what exactly does your manager intend to discuss on Monday?

On Saturday morning, the message reappears in your thoughts. By Sunday evening, it has turned into a source of anxious anticipation. You try to rationalize the situation, reminding yourself that there may be no reason to worry. Even so, you cannot completely shake the feeling that something unpleasant is about to happen.

This is one of the most unsettling aspects of certain corporate environments: their ability to turn seemingly ordinary events into persistent sources of apprehension.

It is important to recognize that an ambiguous message, by itself, does not constitute psychological abuse. Managers need to address problems, question decisions, and provide feedback. However, when similar interactions repeatedly occur in a context of humiliation, threats, unreasonable demands, or unpredictable reactions, situations that should be part of everyday professional life can take on an entirely different emotional meaning.

On Monday, it is 8:03 a.m. when you arrive at the office. You greet a few colleagues, turn on your computer, and try to focus on your first tasks of the day. The meeting is scheduled for 8:30.

At 8:26, you check your notes again. At 8:28, you get up to get a glass of water. Shortly afterward, you are told that your manager is available.

You enter the room. The door closes.

In an organization that respects its employees, a matter of this nature would have been addressed clearly, at the appropriate time, and through responsible communication. If the issue was not urgent, it could have waited until Monday. There would have been no need to turn a professional conversation into a source of anxiety during someone's time off.

After all, the authority to manage a team does not grant unlimited access to its members' time, attention, and peace of mind.

A manager may not realize the effect of a message sent outside working hours. Perhaps they believe they were simply giving advance notice of an issue. Perhaps they forgot about the message minutes after sending it. But for a professional who has already experienced repeated episodes of intimidation, those few words may carry the weight of previous experiences.

And it is precisely in this difference in perception that one of the most troubling dimensions of toxic leadership becomes apparent.

In medium-sized and large companies, managerial authority is necessary to coordinate activities, establish priorities, and ensure accountability. However, that authority should not be confused with the right to demean, intimidate, or discredit people.

There is a profound difference between demanding excellence and managing through fear.

A demanding manager establishes clear objectives, offers well-founded criticism, and creates the conditions for the team to improve. A manager who uses intimidation as a tool of control may achieve immediate compliance, but may also foster insecurity, resentment, and silence.

The difference does not always appear in productivity indicators. At least not immediately.

Imagine another situation.

It is 10:15 a.m. A team has gathered to discuss the progress of a strategic project. Performance indicators, deadlines, and pending tasks appear on the screen. The manager asks why a particular deliverable has not yet been completed.

An employee begins explaining that the work depends on information from another department. Before the explanation is finished, the manager interrupts:

"You always have an excuse. Maybe the problem is your ability to organize your work."

Silence fills the room.

The colleagues are aware of the dependency being discussed. Some could confirm that the necessary information has not yet been provided. Yet no one intervenes.

One participant lowers their eyes. Another pretends to examine their notes. Someone moves the computer cursor, although they are not actually working.

Everyone senses the discomfort. No one knows what the consequences of contradicting the manager might be at that moment.

The meeting continues.

The meeting minutes record the people responsible for upcoming activities, the deadlines, and the decisions made. The document has all the usual characteristics of a productive meeting.

What the minutes do not record is the fear that has begun to shape the team's behavior.

After that incident, the employee may think twice before raising a difficulty. Colleagues may begin avoiding questions. In future meetings, important information may go unshared, not because it is irrelevant, but because no one wants to be associated with a problem.

Gradually, the organization loses something that no financial report can easily measure: people's freedom to say what needs to be said.

Organizational psychology uses the concept of psychological safety to describe the shared belief that team members can ask questions, acknowledge mistakes, and express concerns without fear of humiliation or interpersonal punishment. Research conducted by Professor Amy Edmondson has demonstrated the importance of this condition for collective learning.

In teams where psychological safety has been compromised, silence can be mistaken for agreement. The absence of questions may appear to be a sign of discipline when, in reality, it represents a strategy of self-protection.

The result is a corporate paradox: managers who intimidate their subordinates to gain greater control may ultimately reduce the quality of the information available to inform their own decisions.

An organization does not necessarily become more efficient when its employees stop asking questions. It may simply become less capable of recognizing its mistakes.

The problem takes on an even more delicate dimension when exposure to demeaning behavior begins to transform how a person perceives themselves.

Consider a professional with fifteen or twenty years of experience. Someone who has studied, overcome challenges, developed specialized skills, and built a respectable career. For years, this person received positive evaluations and was able to resolve complex situations independently.

After a few months working under hostile leadership, their behavior begins to change.

Before sending a simple email, they review the text repeatedly. A question that once would have been asked spontaneously now requires careful preparation. A meeting with the manager no longer represents an opportunity to align expectations but becomes a potential confrontation anticipated with anxiety.

The employee begins doubting decisions they previously would have made with confidence.

At home, they may say they are simply tired. At work, they try to conceal their discomfort to avoid appearing vulnerable. Little by little, the effort required to prevent new negative experiences consumes an increasing share of their attention.

The deterioration sets in. The employee continues arriving on time, attending meetings, and delivering results. Their signature remains on documents. Their name continues to appear on lists of responsible personnel. To anyone examining only corporate records, nothing seems particularly different.

Yet the person performing these activities no longer experiences work in the same way.

In certain situations, persistent exposure to hostility can contribute to a state of constant vigilance. Neutral comments become difficult to interpret. Small changes in tone trigger concern. Unexpected messages produce apprehension before they are even opened.

The mind attempts to anticipate threats, identify patterns, and avoid further unpleasant experiences.

This does not necessarily indicate a psychological disorder. Nor does it mean that everyone exposed to difficult work environments will develop the same reactions. These are possibilities that help explain how professional relationships marked by unpredictability and disrespect can undermine well-being and confidence.

Someone who previously considered themselves competent may begin to believe they have lost their abilities.

The environment contributes to weakening their confidence and subsequently uses the signs of that diminished confidence to justify further demands.

For this reason, understanding toxic management requires looking beyond isolated incidents. It is necessary to examine patterns, frequency, context, power relationships, and consequences.

In some organizations, toxic management develops as part of the organizational structure itself.

Imagine a director under pressure to deliver results that exceed those of the previous quarter. The director communicates this urgency to managers, who must reduce costs and accelerate deliverables without receiving additional resources. Those managers pass the pressure on to team leaders, who begin demanding increasing availability from their teams.

At every level of the hierarchy, the tension reaches someone responsible for meeting the expectations of the level above.

The organization functions as a long chain through which pressure is transmitted.

When boundaries are not established, permanent urgency can become a management method. Meetings are scheduled without considering existing workloads. Priorities change repeatedly. Employees are assigned responsibilities that cannot reasonably be fulfilled within the available time and are subsequently blamed for predictable difficulties.

Middle managers may also be suffering. Perhaps they are subjected to unfair evaluations, contradictory decisions, or threats to their own positions.

This helps explain how certain behaviors spread, but it does not make them acceptable.

Being subjected to pressure does not grant anyone permission to humiliate those in positions of lesser power.

In a healthy corporate structure, leadership should serve as a mechanism for coordination and the protection of working conditions, rather than merely functioning as a channel through which pressure is repeatedly transferred until it reaches those with the least autonomy.

However, when evaluation systems reward almost exclusively financial performance and the achievement of targets, harmful behaviors can remain invisible for a long time.

A manager presents excellent numbers. Projects are delivered. Performance indicators remain within expectations. Senior leadership recognizes the manager's performance and considers their management style an example of efficiency.

Within the team, however, employees may be searching for other job opportunities, experiencing sleep problems, or avoiding expressing their opinions for fear of consequences.

The company knows the manager's results. It may be unaware of the human cost required to achieve them.

This difference between an organization's public image and its everyday reality also becomes apparent in the way some companies handle complaints.

Consider an employee who, after months of discomfort, decides to contact the human resources department. The employee carefully prepares an explanation, gathers examples, and attempts to demonstrate that the objective is not to create conflict but to find a solution.

Before the meeting, the employee hesitates.

What if the complaint reaches the manager? What if the employee begins to be perceived as difficult? What if professional opportunities are lost? What if the situation gets worse?

These questions are not necessarily irrational. Trust in an institutional procedure depends on the belief that it will be conducted impartially, with appropriate confidentiality and protection against retaliation.

A company may have an impeccable code of ethics and still tolerate practices that contradict the very principles it claims to defend.

Organizational culture is not determined solely by written policies. It is also revealed through the behaviors that are tolerated, the complaints that receive attention, and the decisions made when protecting someone's dignity requires challenging immediate interests.

But perhaps the deepest cost of a toxic corporate environment does not appear inside the organization.

It becomes apparent when the employee returns home.

Let us return to that Friday evening at the Italian restaurant.

Your daughter had chosen her dessert before even arriving. Throughout the week, she had mentioned several times that she wanted to try the tiramisu featured in the photographs on the menu. Your family had organized the evening so everyone could spend time together.

The manager's message did not cancel the reservation. It did not interrupt the service. It did not prevent the meals from being served.

But it changed the way you experienced that moment.

Perhaps your daughter noticed that you had become quieter. Perhaps your partner immediately recognized that change in your expression and, with the sensitivity of someone who had witnessed the same situation many times before, tried to bring your attention back to the table. A question about dessert, a funny memory, anything capable of pushing work-related worries aside, even if only for a few moments. After all, that evening had been planned with so much love and care. And your family simply wanted you to be there, fully present.

Organizational psychology examines this phenomenon through concepts such as the spillover of experiences between work and personal life and the impact of one person's distress on others with whom they share close relationships.

There is a question that rarely appears in managers' performance evaluations: how many people are indirectly affected by the decisions made within a team?

A professional may spend eight or nine hours under a particular manager's leadership yet continue experiencing the effects of difficult situations long after leaving the office.

And it is not only working hours that are at stake. It is also the quality of rest, emotional availability, personal confidence, and the ability to enjoy moments that should provide recovery and satisfaction.

For some people, the cost becomes especially high because leaving their job is not an immediate option.

There are mortgages, household expenses, responsibilities toward children, financial commitments, and uncertainties about the job market. Many professionals have built specialized careers and know that finding an equivalent position may take time.

That is why advising someone in a hostile workplace to simply resign may demonstrate little understanding of their reality.

Remaining temporarily in a difficult situation does not necessarily mean agreeing with what is happening. It may represent a decision made in light of concrete responsibilities.

Similarly, seeking help is not always simple.

Some professionals fear damaging their reputation, being perceived as unable to work in a team, or facing retaliation. Others have already tried discussing their difficulties and received responses that minimized their experiences.

Professional excellence should not require the deterioration of workers' physical or emotional health.

At this point, the question of legacy arises.

Eventually, every manager leaves the position they occupy. They may be promoted, move to another organization, assume new responsibilities, or end their professional career.

The projects they led will be replaced by others. Performance presentations will become part of institutional archives. Indicators will be compared with those of subsequent periods. Many decisions once considered urgent will eventually lose the importance they once held.

Yet certain memories will remain with people.

A professional may not remember the exact goals of a project completed fifteen years earlier. But they may continue to remember the day they were humiliated in front of their colleagues.

Likewise, someone may remember for decades a manager who supported them during a difficult situation, recognized their abilities, offered them a second chance, or defended them when remaining silent would have been easier.

Human memory does not archive experiences the same way corporate systems record results.

Some words quickly fade from memory. Others leave such deep marks that they remain for years, sometimes for an entire lifetime.

A leader's legacy, therefore, is not limited to the number of projects delivered, the financial growth of their division, or the number of employees they supervised.

It is also reflected in the conditions they created for others to work, learn, and preserve their dignity.

It may be uncomfortable to recognize that a career considered successful from a corporate perspective could have produced negative experiences in other people's lives.

But that possibility deserves reflection.

How many managers confuse respect with obedience? How many interpret silence as agreement? How many believe that constant availability demonstrates commitment, without considering its effects on rest and family life?

And how many organizations promote leaders based on their reported results without attempting to understand how those results were achieved?

These questions are not intended to turn leadership into an activity free of conflict or demands. The challenge of managing people involves difficult decisions, concrete responsibilities, and situations that will not always satisfy everyone involved.

What must be questioned is the normalization of disrespect as a management tool.

Leadership capable of inspiring trust is not leadership that avoids making demands. It is leadership that can establish clear expectations, confront problems, and make decisions without destroying the emotional security necessary for collective work.

Employees do not need to agree with every decision to respect those who make them. Above all, they need to know that they will be treated fairly, that they will be able to express their perspectives, and that their dignity will not depend on the constant approval of their supervisor.

For those currently facing a hostile professional environment, there is another important reflection.

A manager's opinion of your performance does not constitute a complete definition of your competence, much less your worth as a person.

Well-founded criticism can provide opportunities for growth. Unfavorable evaluations can reveal areas that require attention. However, demeaning comments, intimidation, and repeated humiliation should not be confused with professional evaluations.

It is possible to acknowledge mistakes without accepting disrespect.

It is possible to seek improvement without allowing your identity to be reduced to someone else's opinions.

And it is possible to rebuild a professional career after difficult experiences, even when the process requires time, support, and carefully considered decisions.

An organization can replace systems, redesign processes, and modify strategies. It can adopt increasingly sophisticated technologies to monitor productivity, anticipate risks, and evaluate results.

However, no technological advancement can replace leaders' responsibility to treat people with respect, recognize their contributions, and build workplaces where the pursuit of results does not compromise human dignity and well-being.

Let us return, one last time, to that Friday evening.

It is 9:42 p.m.

The Italian restaurant is bustling. Your daughter is finishing a story about something that happened at school as the waiter approaches with the desserts. Your phone remains nearby on the table.

Now imagine a different reality.

During that afternoon's meeting, you raised a concern about the progress of a project. Your manager disagreed with part of your analysis but listened to your explanations. The two of you agreed to revisit the issue on Monday, with the information needed to make a decision.

The problem has not disappeared. Expectations remain. The project still faces difficulties that need to be resolved.

The difference between these two situations does not lie in the absence of professional problems or the elimination of accountability for results. It lies in the quality of the human relationships that sustain the work.

In one situation, authority generates insecurity that extends beyond the walls of the organization. In the other, leadership allows high expectations, responsibility, and respect to coexist.

This difference may seem small to those who examine only performance indicators. For those who experience it every day, however, it can profoundly transform their relationship with work and with life itself.

Perhaps leaders should reflect on this before sending their next message, conducting their next meeting, or delivering their next criticism.

What stories will be told about your leadership when you no longer occupy that position? Will your employees remember someone who helped them develop their abilities, or someone in whose presence they had to weigh every word?

And above all, how much of your influence will remain present in these people's lives when they finish their workday and return to their families?

The true legacy of leadership lies not only in the results it managed to produce, but also in what it helped people preserve while they worked to achieve those results.

For professionals facing hostile environments, one final reflection remains: your career, your knowledge, and your dignity are not defined solely by the way you are treated by a manager. There are other teams, other ways of working, and other possibilities for building professional relationships based on respect.

Finding them will not always be easy. But recognizing that they exist may be the first step toward no longer accepting hostility as an inevitable part of corporate life.

No career should require someone to sacrifice their health, their family's peace of mind, or their self-respect to prove their professional worth.

In the end, after the goals have been achieved, the reports have been archived, and the positions have passed to new occupants, one question will remain that no spreadsheet can fully answer:

Were the people who worked alongside you able to grow without losing themselves along the way?

Perhaps that is one of the most important measures of successful leadership.

And perhaps one of the greatest professional achievements a person can experience is coming home, sitting down at the table with the people they love, and fully enjoying those moments, with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that success at work does not have to be achieved at the expense of their own dignity, emotional health, or family happiness.