There appears to be a growing fascination with the “Elon Musk” style of forceful leadership glorifying a macho bravado over emotional intelligence. But behind the tough talk lies a troubling truth: Such an approach quietly erodes the foundations of a business. After 15 years in the consultancy field, I’ve seen it firsthand. If you want to damage a company from the inside out, lead with ego and ignore the human element.
My work facilitating countless in-house workshops in a wide variety of business sectors is backed by research. Leadership matters. How managers and supervisors engage with their teams directly influences motivation, performance, absenteeism, customer satisfaction, innovation, and long-term loyalty. The impact is immediate and often irreversible.
A significant share of workplace-related mental health issues such as burnout and depression, can often be traced back to organizational dysfunction, and how supervisors and managers treat their teams. When disengaged or unhappy employees are asked to evaluate their leaders, they frequently highlight a lack of core social and emotional skills.
Common complaints include:
- Inability to address or resolve conflicts
- Reluctance to acknowledge or validate good work
- Micromanagement and controlling behavior
- Excessive focus on minor mistakes or faults
In some cases, managers transferred to new departments quickly saw the same pattern emerge—high absenteeism, low morale, and disengagement—indicating that leadership style, not just environment, was the root cause.
On the other end of the spectrum, passive or absent leadership is equally damaging. Teams want leadership—but they want it from someone who leads with integrity, consistency, and emotional intelligence. The most respected leaders don’t shy away from accountability. They address underperformance, but they do so with what can best be described as tough love—firm yet fair, grounded in mutual respect.
People who feel dehumanized, disconnect
Constructive feedback uplifts and encourages growth. In contrast, harsh, demeaning, or fear-based criticism—what some might call the “kick-arse” style—erodes trust, silences initiative, and ultimately dehumanizes. And when people feel dehumanized, they disconnect. That’s how organizations slowly begin to lose their heart—and their talent.
Sport teams offer a great example of leadership style in action. Authoritarian coaches often bring short-term success but fail in the long-term.
Clear expectations, discipline, and structure can boost performance, especially in high-pressure or high-stakes environments like playoffs or elite competition.
Reduced Player Autonomy, Creativity
Over time, however, athletes under this style of leadership show reduced motivation, creativity, and autonomy. A lack of personal agency can stifle adaptive thinking on the field, a key to navigating unpredictable situations.
While some authoritarian leaders succeed in rallying teams through sheer force of will, they often fail to build trust or psychological safety. When things go wrong, blame replaces support, and that kills morale and camaraderie.
My experience is that companies grossly underestimate the cost of bad leadership. Costs can be prohibitive when highly-skilled staff leave, absenteeism rises, and new staff have to be recruited and trained. This comes in addition to the costs caused by demotivated staff in a culture of fear and negativity.
Authoritarian leadership fails over time
Authoritarian leaders in business often deliver quick results. They take control, issue orders, and expect compliance. In moments of crisis or chaos, that decisiveness can seem like strength. But over time, the cracks start to show—both on the field and in the office.
Great teams thrive on trust, mutual respect, and shared purpose. Authoritarian leaders undermine that by silencing voices and centralizing power. Over time, teams stop collaborating and start competing—for attention, approval, or simply survival.
Leaders who foster inclusion, creativity, and emotional intelligence over time are more successful. Satya Nadella, revitalized Microsoft with his emphasis on shifting from a know-it-all culture to a learn-it-all culture, emphasizing emotional intelligence and humility.
Ed Catmull, co-founder of Pixar, and author of Creativity, Inc., a go-to book on healthy leadership. is quoted as saying: “Give a good idea to a mediocre team, and they will screw it up. Give a mediocre idea to a great team, and they will either fix it or come up with something better.”
Success and happiness at the workplace is increasingly dependent on how we communicate and interact with others. At the workplace people operate either as takes, matches, or givers without expecting anything in return, according to famous Organizational psychologist Adam Grant.
Takers are those who almost exclusively act in ways that advance their own personal agendas. In their interactions with others, they are internally asking the question, “What can you do for me?” Matchers operate on a quid pro quo basis, giving in equal measure as others have given to them. Matchers’ interactions are based on fairness, with interactions based on the idea that “If you do something for me, I’ll do something for you.” The third group, the givers, is made up of people who are characterized by serving those around them. The interaction of givers is based on the question, “What can I do for you?”
Grant’s research, based on interviews with 30,000 people across a variety of industries and cultures, reveals that although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries.
Reino Gevers – Author – Mentor –Speaker
If you enjoyed this article you might be interested in my latest book: Sages, Saints and Sinners and “The Turning of the Circle” on how the underlying the laws of nature, give an invaluable insight into life’s evolutionary cycle.
ReinosBlog 