As Pat quickly walked back to his office, the echo of his own angry words was still ringing loudly in his ears. Just a few minutes earlier, Pat had publicly berated a product lead after a botched test, calling them “incompetent” and a “disgrace” in front of the entire team. Even worse, this was not the first time Pat had lost his temper in such fashion. His pattern of explosive outbursts, followed by periods of remorse and contrition, had become all too familiar for his colleagues, who often wondered aloud which version of Pat — “Good Pat (Dr. Jekyll)” or “Bad Pat (Mr. Hyde)” — would show up today.
As Pat slumped into his chair, the guilt began to creep in. “I’ll make it up to them,” he muttered to himself, convincing himself that by acting especially kind and fair over the next few days, he could erase the damage of his outburst. But little did Pat realize he was playing a dangerous game, with the stakes much higher than he realized for his team’s performance.
Although both prevailing wisdom and existing research have often supported the idea that managers can “make up” for abusive behavior by subsequently acting ethically, our recent study reveals a much different story. When leaders oscillate between abusive and ethical behaviors, it has a more detrimental impact on employees’ performance than abuse alone. This “Jekyll and Hyde” leadership style leads to greater uncertainty and emotional exhaustion among employees, damaging their ability to perform their duties effectively, reducing their willingness to engage in important organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., helping a colleague) and increasing the likelihood that they will engage in counterproductive work behavior (e.g., stealing office supplies).
Please select this link to read the complete article from Harvard Business Review.