Is Your Manager Too Soft? Harsh Bosses Are Actually Preferred By Some — Here’s Why
That manager who thrives on unreasonable demands, publicly shames employees for mistakes, and treats the workplace like a war zone—whether they're seen as a brilliant strategist or an ignorant bully often depends not just on their actions, but on how *you* see the world.
New research published in the *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* reveals that people’s perceptions of aggressive leadership are deeply tied to their underlying beliefs about human nature and social dynamics.
Conducted by Christine Q. Nguyen and Daniel R. Ames from Columbia Business School, the study explains why some employees admire tough-as-nails bosses while others find them unbearable. It all comes down to worldview.
The “Dog-Eat-Dog” vs. Collaborative Mindset
People who believe the world is fundamentally competitive—where only the strongest survive—are more likely to respect and even admire abrasive, forceful managers. They interpret harsh tactics as signs of strength, competence, and effectiveness.
In contrast, those who view the world through a cooperative lens tend to see aggressive leadership as a mark of poor judgment and ineffective management. To them, these leaders appear unempathetic, counterproductive, and out of touch.
As the researchers explain:
> “Those who see the social world as a competitive jungle tend to attach greater value to antagonism, responding with heightened tolerance or even appreciation for leaders who show it. Meanwhile, those who see the world as collaborative and caring may often view antagonistic leaders as hopelessly misguided.”
A Real-World Example: The Olive Garden Controversy
The researchers were inspired by a real-life incident that sparked widespread debate: a Kansas Olive Garden manager sent a scathing email to staff threatening job loss for calling in sick. The message read, “If you call off, you might as well go out and look for another job,” and concluded with, “We’ve had enough.”
When the note went viral, public reactions were sharply divided. Some called the manager cruel and unprofessional, while others praised the no-nonsense approach, with one person commenting, “I wish there were more managers like this.”
This split perfectly illustrates the central theme of the research: different worldviews lead to vastly different interpretations of leadership behavior.
Seven Studies, Over 2,000 Participants
To test their theory, the researchers conducted seven studies involving over 2,000 participants across various contexts, including online experiments, business school students, and real-world workplace evaluations.
They measured what they called a **“competitive worldview”**—the extent to which individuals believe the world is cutthroat and rewards ruthless behavior.
Key findings included:
- In controlled scenarios, participants who held strong survival-of-the-fittest beliefs rated antagonistic managers as more competent and effective than collaborative ones.
- Those with a cooperative mindset showed the opposite pattern.
- When evaluating real-world CEOs (e.g., Tim Cook, Mary Barra), participants with competitive worldviews assumed these leaders used aggressive strategies to rise to power and believed that style contributed to their success.
- Employees with a “dog-eat-dog” outlook reported higher satisfaction and motivation under tough bosses. Cooperative-minded workers felt the opposite.
- MBA and Executive MBA students mirrored this trend: experienced professionals still judged aggressive leadership styles based on their personal worldview.
Why Does Antagonistic Leadership Work—for Some?
The research shows that people who believe life is a constant competition don’t just tolerate tough leadership—they actively prefer it. They believe abrasive tactics get results and see them as necessary tools for achieving goals.
For these individuals, aggression isn’t just acceptable—it’s strategic. For others, it signals dysfunction and poor leadership.
This belief also affects job stability: employees with a competitive mindset are less likely to quit under demanding bosses and more willing to choose such leaders voluntarily.
How Workplace Culture Reinforces Worldview
Over time, organizations led by harsh managers may experience a kind of self-selection process. Workers who dislike aggressive leadership tend to leave, while those who accept or appreciate it stay behind, reinforcing a culture of toughness.
This creates a feedback loop: the more people with competitive worldviews remain, the more normalized harsh leadership becomes.
The “Antagonism Penalty”
Despite the support from certain groups, the study found a consistent “antagonism penalty.” Most people, regardless of worldview, still preferred leaders who were empathetic, supportive, and team-oriented.
The researchers emphasize that while worldview can reduce resistance to aggressive leadership, it doesn’t eliminate the general preference for collaborative styles. In short, even among those who value ruthlessness, the majority still lean toward kindness and cooperation.
So the next time two employees have completely opposing views of the same boss—one calling them inspiring, the other tyrannical—it might not be about the leader alone. It could reflect fundamental differences in how each employee sees the world.
To some, toughness equals savvy leadership. To others, it’s just bad management.
---
Paper Summary
**Title:** *Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders*
**Authors:** Christine Q. Nguyen & Daniel R. Ames
**Published in:** *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition*, June 23, 2025
**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000456.supp](https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000456.supp)
Methodology
The research involved seven studies with 2,065 participants drawn from online platforms and business school programs. Researchers assessed participants’ **competitive worldview (CWV)**—their perception of whether the world is a competitive jungle or a cooperative space—and then evaluated how they perceived antagonistic versus collaborative leadership styles. Scenarios included fictional managers, real-world CEOs, actual workplace experiences, and reactions to the Olive Garden email.
Key Results
- Participants with a strong competitive worldview rated antagonistic leaders as more competent and effective.
- These individuals reported higher job satisfaction and motivation under aggressive bosses.
- Belief in the effectiveness of harsh tactics mediated these preferences.
- Evidence suggested a sorting effect in workplaces where competitive-minded employees were more likely to stay under tough leadership.
Limitations
- Samples were primarily U.S.-based and online, limiting cross-cultural applicability.
- Reliance on self-reported data introduces potential bias.
- Findings are context-specific to organizational leadership and may not apply broadly.
- Social desirability bias may have influenced responses, as competitive worldview scores were generally below the midpoint.
Funding and Disclosures
No specific funding sources were disclosed. The authors acknowledged colleagues for their input and made all materials, data, and analysis scripts publicly available via ResearchBox.