For Leaders: The Accidental Bad Boss

BETTER THAN THIS — Article 8 of 9

This is the eighth article in the Better Than This series on toxic workplace cultures — what they are, how they work, and what actually helps. New to the series? Start with Article 1: The Workplace That Wears You Down →

Most leaders do not wake up intending to create a difficult workplace.

Yet leadership research consistently finds that leaders often have an incomplete picture of how their behavior is experienced by the people they lead. The result is one of the most common and least discussed sources of workplace harm: good intentions paired with unintended impact.

This article is not about leaders who knowingly manipulate, intimidate, or exploit others. Those leaders exist, and earlier articles in this series have addressed their impact directly.

This article is for the much larger group of leaders who care about their people, want to do good work, and would be genuinely concerned to discover they are contributing to stress, disengagement, or dysfunction without realizing it.

Because one uncomfortable truth sits at the center of leadership: caring about people and harming them unintentionally are not mutually exclusive.

The Gap Between Intent and Impact

One of the most consistent findings in leadership research is also one of the most humbling: leaders often overestimate how effectively they are communicating, how psychologically safe their teams feel, and how well they understand what is actually happening in the environments they lead.

A global study of workplace wellbeing professionals across 18 countries found that leadership awareness plays a significant role in building engaged, resilient workforces and highlighted the challenges leaders face in accurately understanding employee experiences (Workplace Options, 2025).

This gap is rarely the result of dishonesty. It is more often the result of structure. The people best positioned to observe a leader’s impact are frequently the same people who may feel least safe sharing that feedback openly. As leaders rise in organizations, accurate information often becomes harder to obtain.

In the absence of reliable feedback, leaders naturally fill in the gaps with their own interpretation. Unfortunately, those interpretations are often more generous than reality.

Surveys consistently find that a large majority of professionals report having worked for at least one toxic manager during their careers (Psychology Today, 2024). Most of those leaders did not begin their roles intending to become someone’s worst boss. The distance between intention and impact is where much of workplace harm takes root.

How Good Leaders Become Accidental Bad Bosses

There is no single profile of a leader who causes unintentional harm. But there are recognizable patterns — each rooted in something understandable, each producing damage that the leader is often the last to see.

Stress and dysregulation. As we explored in Article 4: The Nervous System at Work →, chronic stress degrades the precise capabilities that effective leadership requires: emotional regulation, empathy, perspective-taking, and impulse control. A leader under sustained pressure is operating with significantly reduced access to the skills they have worked to develop. They become more reactive, more rigid, and less attuned to the impact of their behavior on others — not because they stopped caring, but because their nervous system is running on threat-response mode. The team experiences the output of that dysregulation without having access to the internal context that explains it. What the leader experiences as pressure, the team experiences as unpredictability.

The modeling problem. Most leaders were shaped by the leaders who came before them. They absorbed patterns — both the ones worth keeping and the ones worth leaving behind — through years of observation before they ever managed anyone themselves. Research on leadership socialization consistently finds that people tend to replicate the leadership behaviors they were exposed to, even behaviors they consciously identified as harmful at the time (Reed, 2004). The leader who swore they would never manage the way their worst boss managed them is not immune to repeating exactly that pattern under pressure, in moments of conflict, or when the organizational culture rewards outcomes over process.

The technical-to-manager transition. Many leaders arrive in their roles because they were exceptional at something other than leading people. They were the best performer, the most productive contributor, the deepest subject matter expert. The skills that earned them promotion are not the same skills required to lead effectively — and in many organizations, the transition includes little to no structured preparation for the human dimensions of the role. The result is a leader who is highly capable in their domain and genuinely underprepared for the interpersonal, emotional, and organizational complexity of managing people well.

The feedback desert. Effective leadership requires accurate information about its own impact. Without that information — without a culture in which honest feedback can travel upward without consequence — leaders operate on incomplete data. They may genuinely not know that a team member feels unseen, or that a comment made in passing altered someone’s behavior for weeks. Research by Daniel Goleman and Cary Cherniss finds that leaders who model and sustain emotionally intelligent environments produce measurably better outcomes — but that this capacity depends on leaders having both the self-awareness to read their own emotional states and the social awareness to accurately perceive their impact on others (Goleman & Cherniss, 2024). In the absence of feedback mechanisms that actually function, self-awareness alone is insufficient.

Conflict avoidance as harm. Some of the most damaging leadership behavior is not aggressive — it is evasive. The leader who avoids difficult conversations because they are uncomfortable allows problems to fester. The leader who gives vague or noncommittal feedback to spare someone’s feelings sets that person up to fail. The leader who agrees in the meeting and reverses privately produces exactly the confusion and reality distortion we described in Article 6: Gaslighting at Work →. Avoidance feels kind in the moment. Its downstream effects are rarely kind at all.

You Cannot Regulate Your Way Out of a Dysregulating System

Throughout this series, we have emphasized nervous system regulation as a valuable tool for both employees and leaders. It remains one of the most practical ways people can improve resilience, emotional awareness, and decision-making under pressure.

It is not, however, a complete solution.

Practices such as intentional rest, movement, mindfulness, and breathwork help people return to baseline after stress. They do not remove the conditions creating the stress in the first place.

As we discussed in Article 3: Burnout Is Not a Personal Failing →, burnout is rarely caused by a single difficult day. It is more often the result of chronic conditions that continually draw down a person’s physical, emotional, and psychological reserves. Individual coping strategies matter, but they cannot compensate indefinitely for an environment that remains consistently overwhelming.

For leaders, this creates an important question. If a team is chronically anxious, reactive, withdrawn, or exhausted, the most useful question may not be whether employees are practicing enough self-care. It may be what conditions in the environment are producing those responses.

Research from MIT Sloan suggests that leaders frequently underestimate the cumulative stress their employees are carrying, focusing on visible workplace demands while overlooking the broader pressures affecting performance and wellbeing. A team can appear functional long after its reserves have begun to erode.

Research on team resilience similarly distinguishes between acute challenges and chronic stressors. Acute events eventually pass. Chronic pressures—persistent workload demands, role overload, unclear expectations, or ongoing organizational uncertainty—can gradually weaken team cohesion and performance over time.

When leaders understand this distinction, they are better positioned to address causes rather than simply treating symptoms.

Someone Always Pays the Regulation Bill

Many teams have a stabilizing person.

They are the colleague who stays calm during conflict, checks in after difficult meetings, smooths tensions, and helps everyone return to functioning when stress runs high. They are often described as the glue that holds the team together.

What is less often acknowledged is that this work comes with a cost.

In Article 4: The Nervous System at Work →, we discussed co-regulation—the way one person’s regulated nervous system can help settle another’s. In healthy teams, this happens naturally and flows in multiple directions. In unhealthy systems, however, the burden often falls repeatedly on the same people.

Research on emotional labor finds that continually managing one’s own emotions while supporting the emotions of others is associated with higher levels of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and work-life strain. These expectations are often poorly recognized and unevenly distributed.

The burden frequently falls on people with less organizational power and remains strongly shaped by gender expectations. Women, support staff, helping professionals, and highly relational employees are often expected to carry emotional responsibilities that are never formally acknowledged as part of their role.

The leadership question is not simply whether someone is playing this stabilizing role on your team. It is whether that person is being supported, recognized, and protected from becoming the solution to a problem the organization itself should be addressing.

When the person carrying that invisible load burns out, teams often discover how much they depended on them only after they are gone.

The Patterns Worth Recognizing

The following are among the most common patterns associated with unintentional leadership harm. They are offered not as an indictment but as a mirror — because recognition is the beginning of change.

Inconsistency. Standards shift with the leader’s stress level. What was acceptable last week is a problem today. People learn to track the leader’s mood rather than focusing on the work, because the leader’s mood determines what the rules actually are on any given day. The team becomes hypervigilant rather than productive.

Credit and accountability asymmetry. Successes flow upward or get attributed broadly. Failures get attributed to individuals — specific individuals — without acknowledgment of the systemic factors that contributed. Over time, this produces a team that stops taking initiative and starts minimizing visibility, because visibility has become associated with risk rather than opportunity.

Selective listening. Some voices reliably land. Others consistently don’t. The pattern may track seniority, affinity, or a dozen other factors the leader has not examined. As we explored in Article 5: The Lost Art of Listening →, people who consistently don’t feel heard do not simply keep trying. They stop. And with them goes the information, the ideas, and the honest feedback the leader most needs.

The warmth trap. Some leaders are genuinely warm, likable, and well-intentioned — and also avoid the harder dimensions of leadership because those dimensions create discomfort. They are reluctant to hold people accountable, reluctant to address underperformance, reluctant to have the honest conversations that would actually serve their team members’ development. This is experienced by the team not as kindness but as a lack of investment — a signal that the leader does not care enough to tell the truth.

Absorbing and transmitting. A leader under institutional or administrative stress — carrying pressure from above, navigating organizational dysfunction, absorbing the consequences of decisions they had no part in making — is at particular risk of transmitting that stress downward without recognizing they are doing it. As we discussed in Article 3: Burnout Is Not a Personal Failing →, administrative stress is chronic, hard to name, and difficult to ask for support around. The leader who is depleted by what they are carrying above them often has less to give the people below them — and may not recognize the connection between the two.

What Brené Brown’s Research Says About This

Brené Brown’s work on shame, vulnerability, and courage in leadership offers some of the most practically useful research available for leaders trying to understand the gap between who they intend to be and who they are under pressure.

Brown identifies what she calls the armor leaders wear — the behaviors that feel like protection but actually create distance and harm. These include perfectionism, which produces unrealistic standards and an inability to acknowledge mistakes. Cynicism and stoicism, which read as strength but close off the emotional attunement a team needs. The need to be right, which prioritizes ego protection over accurate information and good outcomes. And controlling behavior, which increases as uncertainty increases and communicates to the team that their judgment is not trusted (Brown, 2018).

None of these behaviors announce themselves as armor. They feel, to the leader wearing them, like competence and professionalism. Brown’s argument — backed by years of qualitative research across organizations — is that the leaders who create the most psychologically safe, high-performing teams are the ones who can take the armor off: who can acknowledge what they don’t know, ask for help, and sit with the discomfort of honest feedback without defending against it (Brown, 2018).

That is not a small ask. It requires a specific kind of courage that most leadership development programs do not explicitly address. But it is also the kind of change that is available to any leader willing to do the honest work of examining their own patterns.

What Emotional Intelligence Actually Requires

Emotional intelligence has become one of the most cited concepts in leadership development — and one of the most frequently misunderstood.

Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, whose research spans hundreds of thousands of data points across industries and roles, find that emotional intelligence is the strongest predictor of performance, accounting for 58% of success across all job types — and that it is learnable, not fixed (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). That is the good news.

The more nuanced finding is that emotional intelligence, as we explored in Article 4: The Nervous System at Work →, is state-dependent. The skills that comprise it — self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management — are neurologically contingent on being in a sufficiently regulated state to access them. A leader who has genuinely developed emotional intelligence capabilities may find those capabilities significantly less available when they are dysregulated, under threat, or chronically overwhelmed. The skills are there. The consistent access to them is not.

Goleman and Cherniss identify self-awareness as the foundational competency of emotional intelligence in leadership — the capacity to recognize one’s own emotional states, understand their effects on others, and use that understanding to guide behavior (Goleman & Cherniss, 2024). Without self-awareness, the other skills lack a stable foundation. And self-awareness, critically, is not the same as good intentions. A leader can intend to be empathic, consistent, and fair — and still behave in ways that are none of those things, without reliable feedback about how they are actually landing.

This is why nervous system regulation is not a soft-skills sidebar. It is directly relevant to the quality of leadership. A regulated leader is a more effective leader — not because regulation is pleasant, but because it is the condition under which the full range of emotional intelligence becomes accessible. Taking care of your own nervous system is not self-indulgent. It is a professional responsibility. And it is also not, on its own, sufficient — if the system around you is designed to keep you dysregulated.

The Organizational System Problem

It would be incomplete to address leadership harm without acknowledging the conditions that produce and sustain it.

Individual leaders do not operate in a vacuum. They operate inside systems — systems that were built with particular assumptions, that reward particular behaviors, and that often promote leaders for exactly the qualities that, left unchecked, produce the patterns described in this article. The technically excellent contributor who lacks interpersonal skills but produces results gets promoted. The leader who avoids conflict keeps their numbers up and their team’s distress invisible. The organization measures output and misses climate.

Reed’s observation that toxic leaders often advance precisely because organizations do not measure the human cost of leadership describes a structural failure, not just an individual one (Reed, 2004). Leaders who want to lead better are working within that reality. Some of them are also absorbing significant organizational dysfunction from above while trying to protect the people below them at the same time. That is a genuinely hard position — and it deserves acknowledgment alongside the accountability.

The goal of this article is not to assign blame. It is to make the patterns visible, to name the mechanisms that allow them to persist, and to offer a path toward something better. Because the leaders who most need to change are often also the ones who care the most — and caring, combined with honest self-examination and practical tools, is where change actually starts.

Change Can Be Unsettling, Even When It Is Positive

As you begin examining your own leadership patterns and experimenting with new behaviors, the people around you will likely notice. Their reactions may not always be what you expect.

For some team members, visible change can be a relief. For others, it can feel confusing, surprising, or even unsettling at first.

People build expectations based on patterns. If a leader who rarely checks in suddenly asks, “I noticed you were quiet in that meeting. Is everything okay?” the question may be experienced very differently than intended. If a leader who has never publicly acknowledged a mistake suddenly thanks the team for carrying a project through despite their own error, team members may appreciate the gesture—and still wonder what prompted it.

This does not mean the change is wrong. It means people are trying to determine whether what they are seeing is a genuine shift or a temporary exception.

Trust is built through consistency. A single conversation rarely changes how people experience a leader. Repeated actions over time do.

If you have enough psychological safety with your team, it can be helpful to name the change directly. You might acknowledge that you are learning, reflecting on your leadership, or intentionally trying new approaches. Doing so helps people understand what they are seeing and reduces the likelihood that positive changes will be interpreted as unusual, strategic, or short-lived.

The goal is not to announce a transformation. It is to create enough context that people know what to expect—and to follow that context with consistent action over time.

Because ultimately, trust is not rebuilt when people hear that change is coming. It is rebuilt when they experience it often enough to believe it will stay.

The Tools

Tool 1: The Impact Inventory For leaders — establishing an honest baseline

Set aside thirty minutes, away from your usual work environment, and sit with these questions. Write your answers down rather than just thinking through them — writing produces more honest reflection than mental review.

What feedback have I received about my leadership in the past year? What have I dismissed, minimized, or decided was someone else’s misreading of the situation?
Is there a pattern in what I have been told — even indirectly, even in the form of behavior changes in my team?
Who on my team has gone quieter over time? When did that change, and what was happening in my leadership or in the organization at that time?
What do I do differently when I am under pressure than when I am not? Does my team experience the difference?
If I asked the person on my team who trusts me least to describe what it is like to work with me, what do I think they would say?

The inventory is not complete if every answer points to your good intentions rather than your actual impact.

Tool 2: The Regulation Audit For leaders — seeing the system, not just the individual

Before your next team meeting or one-on-one, take a few minutes to sit with these questions — not about individual stress management, but about the environment you are creating:

Who on my team is consistently playing the stabilizing role — absorbing tension, calming others, holding the group together? When did I last acknowledge that work directly?
What am I transmitting to my team that belongs to the pressure above me rather than to them?
Is my team’s current state a response to an acute, temporary challenge — or is it the chronic baseline? How long has it been this way?
If the team’s reserve is depleted, what have I done — or not done — that contributed to that depletion?

These are not comfortable questions. They are necessary ones. A leader who can see the system they are operating in — and their role within it — is a leader who can begin to change it.

Tool 3: Unlocking Feedback For leaders — creating conditions for honest information

Most feedback cultures are broken not because people don’t have feedback to give, but because experience has taught them that giving it honestly is not safe. This tool is not about asking for feedback. It is about doing the prior work of making it possible.

Over the next month, try the following in one-on-ones and small group settings:

Identify something you got wrong recently — a decision, a communication, a reaction — and name it explicitly. Not as self-flagellation, but as modeling: this is what honest acknowledgment looks like here.
When someone raises a concern or a different perspective, respond first with curiosity rather than explanation. Ask one genuine question before offering your own view.
If someone tells you something uncomfortable, thank them specifically — and follow up on what you did with the information.

None of these require a formal feedback process. They signal, through behavior rather than words, that honest information is welcome here.

Tool 4: The Regulated Leader Check For leaders — managing the state you bring into the room

Your nervous system state is contagious. You set the emotional tone of any space you enter before you have said a word. Before any significant interaction, take two minutes:

What state am I in right now? Am I carrying stress or frustration that belongs somewhere else?
Is there anything I can do in the next two minutes to arrive more regulated?
What do I want to model in this interaction — and is my current state consistent with that?

This is not about performing calm. It is about recognizing that the state you bring to your team is part of your leadership — and that managing it deliberately, within the limits of what regulation can achieve in a dysregulating system, is both a skill and a responsibility.

Share Your Experience

If this article resonated, we would genuinely like to hear from you. Share your experience and help inform future resources and offerings.

Take the full anonymous survey →

Coming Up in This Series

Finding Your Way Out: Recovery, Resilience, and What Comes Next

References

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. TalentSmart.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.
DeKay, N. J. (2022). Adverse work experiences and the impact on workplace psychological wellbeing, workplace psychological distress, employee engagement, turnover intention, and work state conscientiousness [Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University]. Digital Commons @ SPU. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/iop_etd/35
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C., & Kerrissey, M. J. (2025). What people get wrong about psychological safety. Harvard Business Review, 103(3).
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.
Goleman, D., & Cherniss, C. (2024). Optimal leadership and emotional intelligence. Leader to Leader, 2024, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20813
Grandey, A. A., et al. (2015). Emotional labor is not “fake” labor: Connecting emotional labor theory to a functional view of emotions at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 457–470.
Hartwig, A., Clarke, S., Johnson, S., & Willis, S. (2020). Workplace team resilience: A systematic review and conceptual development. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3–4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620919476
MIT Sloan Management Review. (2023). How leaders help teams manage stress. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-leaders-help-teams-manage-stress/
Mohase, K., Donald, F., & Israel, N. (2025). Inclusive leadership, psychological safety, and employee voice in remote and hybrid work employees. Group & Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/00812463251365484
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67–71.
Wang, Y., Xu, S., & Zheng, G. (2025). Experiencing, regulating, and expressing emotions: Gendered and agentic pathways of emotional labor in human services. Behavioral Sciences, 15(9), 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091245
Workplace Options. (2025). WPO psychological safety study: The leadership blueprint for building engaged, resilient workforces. https://www.workplaceoptions.com/wpo-psychological-safety-study

If this is resonating and you want support figuring out your next step — schedule a free discovery session →