U.S. workplaces are obligated to abide by national and local labor laws in addition to their own company policies. This means that when an employee alerts management to abuses, the company should lean on these rules and regulations when it responds. Too often, however, organizations quietly embrace a double standard when it comes to addressing who perpetrates the abuse, often resulting in higher-ranking individuals being shielded by a culture of impunity.
Companies not only have legal and ethical obligations to make reasonable efforts to protect employees from harm, but they also must ensure that the intended corrective actions do not create further injury. We want to encourage organizations to critically assess leadership-level interventions that are meant to address abusive behavior and misuse of power when there is limited evidence that such tactics are effective. Instead, we need a deliberate shift towards interventions that prioritize genuine accountability and cultural transformation to eradicate toxic behaviors in the workplace.
Weaponizing Internal Investigations
When companies are faced with allegations of abuse, upper management will immediately consider the risks to the organization. Holding an executive accountable, for example, may be weighed against their contributions and the potential lost revenue through their departure, reputational damage, or exposure to litigation. The problem compounds when those responsible for addressing the situation are on the wrong side of a power imbalance. They can become fearful of having hard conversations with a higher-ranking individual who they might perceive is in a supported position to retaliate.
Consequently, HR and others who are charged with enforcing policies may seek soft landings for the company and themselves, which typically manifests through weak investigations. Worse, poorly executed investigations can function as tools against those who speak up against bullying and abuse, creating a widespread fear of reprisal across the organization and discouraging employees from reporting misconduct, which in turn perpetuates toxic cultures.
Established companies may also rely on outside law firms to conduct relatively reliable investigations into misconduct but conceal their finding through attorney-client privilege. And even when there are findings, many organizations will seek the least corrective action possible. This often translates into performative initiatives such as virtue signaling for psychological safety or diversity and inclusion and other seemingly tangible responses to include coaching and training for individuals who may require a far stronger intervention.
The Illusion of Fixing the Problem
Certain organizational interventions can create a facade of improvement while allowing toxic leaders to remain in power. For instance, when efforts to address bullying bosses are done in the absence of a formal complaint, many companies will seek out support from high-dollar executive coaches. What is written on the walls is that executive coaching can seldom change the leader’s maladaptive behaviors that stem from rooted pathologies that cause them to bully and abuse others in the first place – where psychotherapy is not either a viable solution.
In the most obvious cases, e.g. when there is an admission of guilt, a company can easily lean into loopholes in laws that let them off the hook and hide behind platitudes stating that they follow the letter of the law. This translates into the weakest possible responses: sending carefully worded letters stating that they treat all concerns seriously and will take corrective measures through leadership development training and executive coaching, which can appear tangible and concrete – even when everyone prescribing these knows it won’t really change a thing. These words and measures are not deliberately crafted to just inform complainants of an investigation’s outcome; they are put in place to protect the company from liability.
Furthermore, when executive coaches agree to provide these services for leaders who knowingly present a prior history of misuse of power, they become complicit in prioritizing profit over real change, allowing abusive executives to escape accountability. This is a trend important to keep a close eye on, especially as the phenomena of workplace bullying, DEI brands, and narcissistic leadership behaviors gain more public attention. We are witnessing an emergence of executive coaches and consultants who see an economic opportunity in this niche, often offering services without appropriate credentialing or background to truly stand up for what is right in these devastating circumstances.
Psychological Safety Gone Awry
When executive leaders are put in charge of creating psychological safety for their employees, it is often as an intervention to create positive and inclusive corporate cultures. Ideally, employees who feel safe in the presence of their leaders and teammates are encouraged to speak up, fail, and show up as their truest selves without concern for being marginalized or punished for doing so. These efforts also highlight the role of transparent communication and active listening in fostering a culture of trust and accountability.
However, psychological safety approaches in the hands of abusive leaders can inadvertently put vulnerable employees at risk by forcing them to expose critical vulnerabilities and information without proper safeguards, causing concerned employees who are being encouraged to trust their leadership with speaking truth to power to become targets of further abuse or retaliation. This results in institutional betrayal that employees end up absorbing on their own, alongside the effects of dealing with the reported abusive behavior and an opaque, slow-moving investigative process that creates fundamental damage to the psychological well-being of the same employees who trusted it was safe to speak up.
The Need for Genuine Accountability
The journey towards healthy workplaces demands courage, introspection, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. It necessitates building genuine disruptions through well-implemented interventions that prioritize real behavioral change over superficial fixes. It means that anyone who is abusive, regardless of rank, must face consequences for their actions. And it means that HR chiefs, inside counsel, and other executives must play a leading role in this effort. Likewise, affected employees have a right to seek counsel and directly challenge investigative outcomes by calling out disparate treatment in environments where power imbalances are evident. Plaintiff counsel, too, can choose to speak directly to insufficient attempts at corrective action, and thereby dismantle the facade and encourage meaningful follow-through on reported issues.
Even for companies who would do anything to protect their bottom line over people, ignoring the proper measures to address workplace abuse exposes them to an expanding variety of actions that can come at a significant cost through high-dollar settlements and viral QuitToks that harm an organization’s brand. Obviously, we are on the side of putting people first, as do organizations looking to create systemic change through support of new bills like the Psychological Workplace Safety Act. Juries, consumers, and employees are demanding better. They are demanding real accountability, not just the appearance of it.
