Boss Abuse and Subordinate Payback

Defining Abuse

The method for classifying employees as victims of boss abuse followed a previously developed, empirically guided eight-category scheme (Hornstein, 1996):

Without exception, every respondent’s report of mistreatment fell into one or more of these categories, qualifying them as boss-abused employees. Unfortunately, further use of this category scheme for analysis of the data was not possible. Bosses were typically multiple abusers, falling into as many as four different categories during a single episode of subordinate abuse. Therefore, it was impossible to make empirically defensible claims about either the frequency of an abuse category’s occurrence or about how victims’ responses varied because of the kind of boss abuse they suffered. However, respondents’ reports of the abuse they suffered and their responses to it are highly informative about when and why payback succeeds or fails, and this is the principal concern of this article.

Payback: Successes

On March 13, 2001, Neil L. Patterson, the 51-year-old CEO of Cener Corporation, a Kansas City–based company with 3,000 employees that develops health care software, sent an e-mail to approximately 400 of the company’s managers. It read in part:

We are getting less than 40 hours of work from a large number of our K-C-based EMPLOYEES. The parking lot is sparsely used at 8 a.m.; likewise at 5 p.m. As managers—you either do not know what your EMPLOYEES are doing; or you do not CARE. You have created expectations on the work effort which allowed this to happen inside Cerner, creating a very unhealthy environment. In either case, you have a problem and you will fix it or I will replace you.

The memo then went on to threaten lay-offs and curtailed benefits if the parking lot was not “substantially full” at 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and half full on Saturdays. “You have two weeks,” Patterson concluded, “Tick, tock.”

On March 21, one or more of the CEO’s subordinates retaliated by posting his e-mail on Yahoo, thereby giving it far wider circulation than Patterson could have intended or wanted. Within 3 days, trading of Cerner stock increased nearly six-fold and the company’s asset value fell 22%.

In a follow-up e-mail, likely inspired by the public payback he had received, Patterson stated that his message had been taken out of context and explained that he was simply exaggerating in order to stimulate discussion. The e-mail contained no threats and apologized to offended employees, while still alleging that there was a work ethic problem within the company (Wong, 2001).

A different type of episode was described by Edie, someone I interviewed. Edie is a 46-year-old woman who had been working in the same office for almost 20 years. Bosses and coworkers came and went, but Edie remained a constant. She liked her job, which involved record-keeping and customer contacts relevant to the company’s billings, and the office was convenient to her home. All was well until yet another new boss arrived. “She was a screamer,” Edie told me.

People were shouted at in the worst ways-curses. We all could see and hear everything. . . . Whether it happened to me or someone else didn’t matter. We all felt that way. You know, you would just be upset for someone else, embarrassed, and you knew you could be next.

And this behavior was taking a toll on both work performance and employee relationships. “There was just tension—so thick it could be cut with a knife. . . . You know, if you’re up-tight you make mistakes. That was happening, and people were snapping at each other and blaming - pointing their fingers.”

For a while Edie kept quiet, all the while asking herself why someone else did not step up to the plate and defend himself or herself against this woman’s abusive cruelty. But then she learned that people had complained, and their complaints had been dismissed because the “screamer” had apparently managed to convince her own bosses that the complainers were just lazy employees who resented what she described as her “tough, demanding” style. At that point, Edie said, “Something came over me. I couldn’t let this happen anymore. She was poisoning everything.”

So Edie devised an intricate plot to expose her boss. She waited until the screaming started (apparently, once she got started, the screamer could be counted on to continue her rant for some time), and then phoned someone outside the company whom she had prepped in advance. That person immediately called the screamer’s bosses, who worked on the floor above. Pretending to be from “security,” he alerted them to an emergency on the floor below that required their immediate attention. He then hung up before they had a chance to question him further. As expected, the bosses raced downstairs, where they caught the screamer in full rant.

After that, Edie said, they questioned her and her coworkers about the screamer’s behavior. Then, “They read her the riot act.”

According to Edie, the episode had the effect of bringing the employees together and making them an even more closely knit team than they had been before the screamer’s arrival on the scene. “It wasn’t even like the old days,” she said. “It was better than before. No tension. Laughing. Working hard. Everybody pulling together. You, know, it was like ‘We did it. We took care of that so-and-so.’”

Payback was deemed successful when it deterred a boss’s abuse. What happened to Edie and at the Cerner Corporation are examples. Something else that is clear in these two examples is how successful payback often alerts those in authority to the boss’s misbehavior and more closely binds the abused subordinate(s) to his/her coworkers.

Experiences told to me by Will also show how successful payback, when it contains the right ingredients, can produce benefits for abused subordinates, their organizations, and even abusive bosses themselves.

“Without going into detail that might be more revealing than sensible,” Will said to me,

Let’s just say that I work for a small firm that creates graphic material for various print media.

We have more than four dozen full-time employees and a small, varying number of part-timers. The owner is the boss, which means that he’s on premises at least part of every day, but we also have a head honcho who takes care of operations. Only a few of us have been with the firm since day one. The rest have worked varying lengths of time with us. At least that was true until recently. Now I think that we’ll be seeing less people quitting.

He continued,

I guess that I’m telling you this because it’s sort of central to the rest of what I want to say. The reason is that it was just hard to stay with this person—the ops honcho. It’s a business of deadlines—some kind of regular—others, on special jobs, sort of pop-up. For the past few years, at least once a week you had a pretty good chance of having to put up with some pretty shabby treatment.

Will was speaking about how the operations manager’s abusive behavior increased as deadlines approached. He explained,

Orders were shouted. It was like, forget about who you report to; there are only two groups: me—the big-boss—and everyone else. No “please” or “thank you.” Do this or that, get over to someplace or someone a minute ago if not sooner; forget what you’re doing, I’ll tell you what’s best. Calling us by our last names or just “you,” as if we hadn’t been working together and he really didn’t know us. I think I am speaking for everybody; it was like you don’t count or you’re stupid, or something. And then sometimes, even though I got used to it, it became embarrassing to be talked to like that in front of friends. Or maybe that’s something you never get used to.

Then things changed. “. . . about a year ago, someone was hired—I won’t say man or woman—who, at home, I call a hero.” (Note: Several people were hired at that time so, by disguising gender, the person with whom I was chatting was hiding the person’s identity.) The person goes through this and then one day, at lunch, asks something like, “So, why do we take it?” “OK, so you’re not going to take it,” we say. “Like, what can you do?”

This hero is amazing. The next week pictures are posted on our website, side-by-side. I think that there were three the first week, with dates and little statements along with each one which I do not exactly remember. But it’s like, here’s honcho calmly chatting and here he is at his desk working. Then it’s him pointing, and even from behind you can see how red he gets.

And then a week or so later, I think, there’s one of him leaning on a desk with two fists. You can really see his red face here.

We were screaming laughing. It was medicine.

Previously, according to Will, the owner/boss was either unaware of the operation honcho’s misbehavior or knew about it but did not care because his financial priorities were being satisfied. Now, however, Will guessed,

He must have known but I honestly don’t know what he said (to the honcho), if anything. But what I do know is that honcho speaks to us. He’s actually pretty good-humored about the whole thing. “OK, I get it” he says, with his hands up.

What “hero” did worked, Will reported. “The atmosphere is totally different—more relaxed. Truthfully, it’s easier to get everything done. I bet we’re early on most projects now. It’s a pretty neat place to be.”

What do these stories of successful payback have in common? They exemplify the three ingredients associated with successful payback. Successful payback is well-targeted (aimed at the abuser), well-timed (occurring at times that established a connection between the abuse and the payback), and well-tempered (motivated and crafted to end the abuse rather than merely inflict cost). In short, payback’s success depends on who you aim at, when you do it, and for what purpose.

In each of the examples, payback was successful because it targeted the abusive boss (in Will’s small graphics firm, for example, that was the abusive operations honcho) and its timing connected it to the harmful boss behavior (weekly website postings by “hero” occurred on the heels of the honcho’s deadline-stimulated misbehavior and literally displayed the misbehavior along with date stamps and commentary) for the purpose of ending further abuse (vs. getting even by lashing out solely to inflict pain).

Overall, 62% of cases in which payback was deemed successful because respondents reported an end to the boss’s abuse contained all three of these ingredients: It was well-targeted, well-timed, and well-tempered.

Payback: Failures

In contrast, in an almost exact reversal of the success ratio, 68% of payback failed (i.e., abuse continued) when it was badly targeted—aiming at what is vulnerable in organizations rather than at the abusers themselves; poorly timed—occurring at times that were either opportune or primarily responsive to the avenging subordinates’ emotions instead of times that would strategically highlight bosses’ abuses; and ill-tempered—designed to inflict pain rather than end abuses. Even worse, avenging subordinates whose responses were badly targeted, poorly timed, and ill-tempered, often, but not always, suffered reprimand (frequently severe and in public), punishment (e.g., demotion, stalled promotions, undesirable work assignments), and/or dismissal.

One example of payback failing occurred in the case of a programmer at the Bank of America who reportedly sabotaged his company’s payroll program because he believed his bosses were unfairly blaming him for continuing problems with the program (Sprouse, 1992). He planted a “logic bomb” in the system. “The next time the program started running,” he said, “it slowly started disappearing. Once it started failing, all the other programs started deleting themselves.” And what about the other employees who must have suffered from having not only the payroll program but all the other programs deleted? As the saboteur put it, “Granted, I f***** with the workers, but I really ruined the Bank of America’s credibility. A couple of supervisors got fired. Heads rolled and that’s all that mattered to me” [italics added].

Assumedly, anyone who was that familiar with, and had such access to, his company’s computer systems could have found a way to expose his bosses’ alleged shortcomings as well as the system’s flaws that might have proved far more beneficial to the bank as well as himself and his coworkers and boss. But this guy apparently did not care about anything except spreading misery even if his own situation did not change.

Another example of unsuccessful payback was reported by Julie, the employee of an insurance company located in Europe. Explaining what triggered her need for payback in the first place, she told me,

At some point micro-management goes beyond a line and becomes a personal insult. It says, quite simply, you’re so much the fool that I must provide minute detail and close supervision. Well it certainly crossed the line with me when just so many words were said to me in public, in front of my team. In a harsh, rude way, I might add. In private it would have been unacceptable. In public, with my direct reports present - well, no, that’s really unnecessary and foul.

What happened was this. Despite years of positive performance appraisals from several bosses including her present supervisor, one July day at a staff meeting Julie’s boss began to raise questions about the quality and speed with which her team was completing their work.

Although she was taken aback, Julie acknowledged that problems did exist, accepted responsibility, offered ideas for making improvements, and asked for additional suggestions.

Before anyone else could speak, her boss leaned across the table and, speaking in a monotone that indicated her total exasperation, informed Julie that she should have anticipated the problems. “There’s just no explanation except laziness or lack of ability,” she went on, asking Julie which of the two she thought was to blame.

After taking a moment to calm herself down and gather her thoughts, Julie politely replied that she didn’t think either explanation was quite correct. “But,” she continued, “I understand that these problems must be corrected.”

She got no farther, however, because her boss once more interrupted. “To my way of thinking, even your refusal to think about the explanation indicates that you are exhibiting one or both of these two characteristics.”

At that point, someone else spoke up offering suggestions, and the meeting moved on.

But Julie, now totally humiliated and furious, did not.

Julie described her payback saying,

It was childish and vicious, I’m sure, and embarrassing to tell, but I actually copied what I had heard from a friend who worked elsewhere—something she was doing to her supervisor.

Without going into too much detail, unbeknownst to anyone, I had the wherewithal to enter files in her [computer] system. So I inserted the occasional alteration or deletion. Things that [the boss] needed to complete her work, work that was partially done, a bit here or there—it became messy. . . . The funny bit is—and I hate saying this to you, what will you think of me—I didn’t feel greatly bothered.

She continued to do it, she confessed,

Not every day, mind you, and never in a way . . . to a degree . . . that could be discovered. I actually enjoyed her dither. So, well, there you have it. I just did it as often as I dared.

And did Julie’s boss ever catch on to what was happening? “No, not really. That’s the funny bit. She’s been blaming herself and her equipment. That made it even more delicious.”

Although Julie targeted her abuser, her unsuccessful payback, ill-timed and ill-tempered, like that of the Bank of America programmer’s, was designed to punish not remediate. And although she enjoyed her boss’s plight, she had done nothing to end the abuse.

Action Steps

Because payback is more likely to be successful when it is well-targeted, well-timed, and well-tempered, before they act, employees contemplating its use might benefit by examining their answers to the following three questions.

If an examination of one’s answers to these questions reveals that costs will be suffered by others as well as the abuser(s), the connection between payback and abusive behavior is unclear, or harm-doing is one reason (or, most dangerously, the only reason) for using payback, then rejecting the payback option may be advisable. Its use is likely to be unsuccessful in stopping the abuse while also potentially inflicting costs on the avenging employee, his or her coworkers, and the organization.

Future Research

Since 60% of respondents used payback as a response to a boss’s abuse, the following assertion is likely correct: Organizations that permit or promote boss abuse of subordinates will experience more attempts at payback than those that do not. Thus, there is reason to investigate the conditions that cause organizations to become, what might be called, abuse-enabling and abuse-disabling.

It is reasonable to speculate that organizations are abuse-enabling when, deliberately or inadvertently, they depict subordinate employees as instruments, useful for achieving desired ends, but expendable. In contrast, they are probably abuse-disabling when subordinate employees are treated as valued assets.

William, one of the 100 working people interviewed by me, summed up this difference when he said,

There is one message seeping out of every pore in the place: Either you’re in or you’re out. Since we need you today, you’ll get paid, but tomorrow you’re on your own.

So . . . what it boils down to is this: We’re here to earn bucks for the company just like any other piece of machinery. I’m not saying that anyone actually says that—oh no, God forbid—but it’s in the air. You can smell it. You can sense it and feel it because it’s part of everything that happens. Look at pay. Look at who you get to talk to. How they talk to you, even what they talk to you about—whether they look you in the eye or use your name . . .

I’m telling you, you can’t always put your finger on it, but it’s there. How far would they go to keep you when there’s a problem? Are you going to have a job? Do they care? No!

William is telling us that employees understand a company’s real messages despite polite gestures and politically correct pronouncements. And these real messages produce an abuse-enabling organization when they minimize inclusion while stressing exclusion by communicating that some of the company’s employees are “in” but all the rest can be mistreated because they are “out.”

The perceived equity and impartiality of grievance procedures (Cropanzano, 2001), differences in distributions of pay (Mishel & Alyssa, 2014), timing and character of communications about downsizing (Greenberg, 1996), as well as the availability of opportunities to influence relevant problem-solving discussions (Burke, 2002) are examples of just some ways through which organizations may be sending abuse-enabling and abuse-disabling messages to bosses, thereby raising or lowering the incidence of subordinate payback. If future research successfully identifies organizational variables that create and sustain abuse-enabling work settings and if there’s sufficient organizational will and know-how to alter them, then it will be possible to obviate the need for subordinate payback by removing its major cause—abusive boss behavior.