Why boards tolerate a manager who gets results at the expense of their people

Why the results show up immediately but the damage done to the team only much later

A director exceeds the sales plan by more than ten per cent. The board congratulates him at meetings, even though an experienced employee leaves his department every few months. Complaints are hushed up, staff avoid asking questions and other departments do not want to work with him. In the quarterly report, the first fact is visible immediately; the other costs are scattered across different budget lines. This creates the illusion that results and management style can be separated. The cost of recruitment is only part of the consequences. On top of that come lost contacts, mistakes hidden from scrutiny and people giving up on suggesting improvements. A manager’s assessment should therefore cover retention of expertise, how safe it is to raise problems, the quality of collaboration and adherence to standards. None of these measures provides a ready-made diagnosis of the person, but together with the financial result they give a fuller picture of their impact.

What research says about destructive leadership – and what it does not

In a meta-analysis published in 2013, Schyns and Schilling brought together 57 studies on destructive leadership. They found links between negative leader behaviour and less favourable attitudes towards supervisors, lower well-being and more frequent intentions to leave. In a meta-analytic review, Mackey and colleagues showed that experiencing abusive supervision is associated with unfavourable outcomes in many areas, although the size of the relationship also depends on how the studies were conducted. These are primarily statistical associations, not proof that one manager caused all of a particular company’s problems. That is why the board should compare signals from several sources: records of incidents, turnover data, the views of colleagues, the manager’s own explanations and observation of changes after an intervention. What it must not do is treat a single anonymous complaint as the final verdict – or dismiss it simply because the accused “delivers the numbers”.

Don’t just ask who has left – ask who has stopped speaking up

The most worrying sign is not always a loud conflict. Sometimes a team stops reporting mistakes, risks and ideas. In a 2014 review, Morrison described the mechanisms of employee voice and silence, including fear of the negative consequences of speaking up. When a manager punishes bad news, the company can look calmer at precisely the moment it is losing its flow of information. So in addition to well-being surveys, it is worth asking: when did someone last challenge a decision by their manager, what happened then, and were the problems that were raised actually fixed? Also check whether your best people have room to develop, or are simply taking on more and more work from those who leave. Silence on its own does not prove abuse. It is, however, reason enough to look at how signals from the team are handled.

Replace the “toxic” label with a description of incidents and a standard of behaviour

In a meeting with the manager, the sentence “Everyone thinks you’re toxic” is more likely to trigger defensiveness than change. A factual message sounds different: “In three meetings you cut people off mid-sentence, twice you used demeaning language, and after someone reported a mistake you removed them from the project. I’d like to hear your side of what happened.” Next, name the standard: no humiliation, no retaliation, and the right to report risks. The manager has the right to respond to the facts and to know what is expected; the people who raised concerns must be protected. Agree on which behaviours need to change, how they will be observed and a specific review date. If the incidents point to serious violations, coaching alone should not replace the proper internal procedure. The process should be run independently and with respect for the rights of everyone involved. What counts is a real change in behaviour, not simply signing a memo.

New legislation makes prevention and reporting more important

In Poland, amendments to the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy) have been in force since 5 November 2026, covering, among other things, workplace bullying (“mobbing” under Polish law), discrimination and the protection of employee dignity. The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) stresses the importance of systematic prevention, efficient handling of reports and corrective action. This does not mean that every heated exchange is mobbing: the new provisions refer, among other things, to persistent harassment, and assessing specific incidents requires applying the appropriate criteria. From the board’s perspective, another conclusion matters: failing to respond to a credible signal is not a neutral decision. It is worth checking whether there are reporting channels that employees know about, whether managers are prevented from controlling complaints about their own behaviour, and whether the findings of an investigation lead to change. At the same time, professional standards must be protected: fair performance assessment and justified criticism of work remain part of a manager’s duties.

How to tell whether improvement is real rather than just declared

Suppose a manager says he has improved, but a month later his staff refuse to talk to him without a witness present. That is a signal that further oversight is needed, not proof of sufficient change. Decide at the outset what should be different in three months: how briefings are run, the response to mistakes, the number of reports requiring intervention, the ability to raise objections and the quality of collaboration with other departments. Do not base your assessment on a single survey, and do not penalise the manager merely because complaints exist. Check whether the behaviour has changed across many situations and whether anyone suffers negative consequences for raising a problem. If the manager refuses to meet the standards, the board must consider HR decisions appropriate to the situation. A strong business result does not release anyone from responsibility for the conditions in which that result is achieved.

A manager’s strong results should not obscure the cost of their behaviour. The board needs data from several sources, procedures that protect the people who raise concerns, and clear standards of work. Action begins with describing specific incidents and ends with checking whether the behaviour has changed – not just the promises.

How Empatyzer helps you prepare difficult feedback for a high-performing manager

A board member needs to speak with a director who achieves strong sales results but is attracting a growing number of complaints. Before the meeting, the board member describes the facts to Em: specific remarks, escalation situations and the company’s standards. Em helps structure the message so that it does not come down to the label “toxic”, but instead sets out the expectation of change and asks for an explanation of what happened. If relevant team data is available, it can help clarify which differences in communication and collaboration needs are making the conversation harder. It is not, however, a basis for deciding complaints or assigning blame. Em can prepare several ways to respond to the argument “But I’m hitting all my targets” and help steer the conversation back to the quality of management. As a result, HR gets a better-prepared conversation partner, not an automatic assessment of the case. The manager can later practise with Em giving difficult feedback, responding to mistakes and taking objections on board without becoming defensive. There is one practical goal: the same standards of behaviour for everyone, regardless of how big their results are.