Don't scream: The researchers found that those employees who returned hostility tended to do it in a passive-aggressive way, rather than yelling and screaming back
It might sound like a risky strategy but standing up to a hostile boss can actually boost your work life, according to a study.
Employees felt less like victims when they retaliated against their bad bosses and as a result experienced less psychological distress, more job satisfaction and more commitment to their employer, the researchers from Ohio State University found.
And most surprisingly of all, giving their boss a taste of their own medicine didn't appear to damage the person's career prospects.Lead author of the study, Professor Bennett Tepper, said: 'Before we did this study, I thought there would be no upside to employees who retaliated against their bosses but that's not what we found.
'The best situation is certainly when there is no hostility. But if your boss is hostile, there appears to be benefits to reciprocating.
'Employees felt better about themselves because they didn't just sit back and take the abuse.'
Prof Tepper said: 'In a second study we wanted to see if employees who retaliated against their bosses also reported that their career was damaged by their actions.
'But in our survey anyway, employees didn't believe their actions hurt their career.'
For the study, which was published in the journal
Personnel Psychology, hostile bosses were defined as ones who yelled at, ridiculed, and tried to intimidate their workers.
The researchers found that those employees
who returned hostility tended to do it in a passive-aggressive way, rather than yelling and screaming back.Actions included ignoring their boss, acting like they didn't know what their bosses were talking about, and giving just a half-hearted effort - all behaviours 'that bosses don't like and that fit the definition of hostility', said Prof Tepper.
In the first study, 169 people completed two surveys, seven months apart. The first comprised a 15-item measure of supervisor hostility, and also asked participants how often they retaliated, and how.
Seven months later, when the same respondents were surveyed about their jobs and how they felt,
those who didn't retaliate had higher levels of psychological distress, less satisfaction with their jobs and less commitment to their employer.'However, those employees who returned the hostility didn't see those negative consequences,' Prof Tepper said.
A second survey was carried out to find out whether the retaliation damaged their careers.
The researchers found there was no negative impact.Prof Tepper said he believes one of the reasons employees who fight their corner feel more positive could be because they win the admiration and respect of their colleagues.
'There is a norm of reciprocity in our society,' he said. 'We have respect for someone who fights back, who doesn't just sit back and take abuse.
'Having the respect of co-workers may help employees feel more committed to their organisation and happy about their job.'
Good to know, and it could apply in similar non-job situations as well, if it's really accurate as presented. Another example of "Saying No", a la "When the Body Says No"? It would be interesting to see, however, an objective measure of how this affected their job prospects, since a subjective assessment could be biased. It may be that some forms of protest are superior. And also, what of "crucial conversations"? Of course you just can't reason with some "people" (psychos), but I wonder if that same anger could be used in a constructive way rather than passive-agressive.
An intervention study would be interesting, to rule out that this isn't more due to temperament or something like that, but I wonder about the ethics of suggesting people be more passive-agressive toward their employers. (Although, with an abusive employer, I'm sure at least one or two might jump at the idea.)