Getting away “Scott”(but not Susan) free
Fiset, J., & Byrne, A. (2025). Getting away “Scott”(but not Susan) free: The effects of safety‐specific abusive supervision and supervisor gender on follower attributions and safety outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 46:90–107.
Our opinion
Excessive behavior by people in positions of authority is widely condemned today. However, the research presented below identifies positive effects of abuse of authority in the field of safety. To put it in less diplomatic terms, its thesis is that, in matters of safety and under certain circumstances, a severe reprimand from a direct superior can be well received by employees. Instead of being perceived negatively as illegitimate abusive behavior, it will be understood positively as a sign of the superior’s sincere commitment to personnel safety. But beware! This surprising effect only occurs if the superior is a man.
NB. The title of the article is based on a wordplay on the expression “to get away scot-free”, which means “to get away without consequences”. The authors transform the old word “scot”, which historically meant “bill, note, or charge”, into a male first name (Scott) and contrast it with a female first name (Susan).
Sometimes it’s good to get yelled at by one’s boss
Safety and abusive supervision
The loud, overbearing boss is a universal deterrent. In safety management, and more broadly in management as a whole, it has long been established that the opposite figure is the preferred and accepted model. Authority, hierarchy, verticality, and especially harshness are considered detrimental to a safe working environment. Furthermore, we are repeatedly told that younger generations no longer tolerate such approaches. Of course, harshness has not disappeared from organizations (no more than hierarchy has). But researchers, consultants, and practitioners agree on condemning it and denouncing its negative effects. They develop, promote, and implement systems and practices that favor listening, kindness, participation, engagement, and horizontality.
In research, the term “abusive supervision” is used instead of “loud boss”. It refers to excessive behaviors by hierarchical figures toward their subordinates. Abusive supervision is defined as a perception: it measures the extent to which subordinates evaluate hostile behaviors from their superior (both verbal and non-verbal) as abusive. The superior’s abusive behavior is interpreted negatively by the subordinate as a sign of malicious intent. Abusive supervision has overwhelmingly negative consequences for the employees who experience it and, consequently, for the organization: stress, emotional exhaustion, retaliatory aggressive behaviors, and, of course, decreased job performance. Specifically regarding safety, research has confirmed the negative effects of abusive supervision and supports opposing practices such as “transformational leadership” or maintaining high-quality relationships between leaders and subordinates.
But is this always the case? It has long been noted that, in certain circumstances—especially when a threat looms over a group—a tough and demanding leadership style is more readily accepted and proves effective. This is the famous Churchillian promise: “blood, toil, tears, and sweat”. In high-risk environments, threatening situations are frequent by definition. Could it be, then, that a leader’s harshness is positively received by employees?
Our summary
This is the hypothesis explored in the Journal of Organizational Behavior article. This authoritative scientific journal in the field of applied organizational psychology regularly publishes research on safety issues. The authors conducted two experiments and a survey. The experiments exposed subjects to the following scenario: as a kitchen employee in a restaurant, the subject spills frying oil on the floor; upon seeing this, the manager aggressively reprimands the employee in front of everyone, criticizing their incompetence, lack of professionalism, and inattentiveness. The subject was asked to evaluate the manager’s behavior (abusive or not) and determine the manager’s intent (negative or positive). A similar scenario was tested with a neutral situation unrelated to safety (an employee being late).
The results clearly show that the manager’s behavior is perceived as abusive. However, in the safety-related scenario, employees attribute a positive intention to the manager (concern for their safety). In contrast, when dealing with tardiness, employees perceive the manager’s intention as negative.
In the first experiment, the wording did not assign a gender to the manager. A second experiment replicated the scenario, this time with managers explicitly identified as male or female. When the manager was a man, the results of the first experiment were confirmed. However, when the manager was a woman, employees did not attribute positive intent to her (though they did not necessarily see her intentions as negative either).
The survey was based on respondents' personal experiences and aimed to assess the consequences of abusive supervision. Respondents were asked to recount and evaluate past instances of abusive supervision. By comparing cases involving direct safety concerns with those that did not, the researchers identified a significant effect: employees tend to see the episode as proof of their superior’s commitment to safety. However, again, this effect occurs only when the superior is a man.
To summarize
A man in a hierarchical position can publicly and harshly reprimand an employee who has committed or is likely to commit a dangerous act without being perceived negatively. On the contrary, the employee recognizes his sincere commitment to their safety. However, a woman in the same position, situation, and behavior does not receive the same positive judgment or recognition.
A commentary by Hervé Laroche, program leader at Foncsi
This research offers several key insights.
First, it confirms that the field of safety has unique characteristics that justify conducting specialized research, developing tailored theories, and adopting safety-specific practices.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates that in events involving safety concerns, managerial harshness can be justified—even in the eyes of those who experience it. More than that: it enhances the manager’s image in terms of safety. The authors suggest investigating other potential positive effects. While they did not find an impact on ‘safety voice’ (employees’ willingness to openly discuss safety issues), they suspect there are other beneficial aspects of such harsh episodes.
However, the authors do not advocate for managerial harshness as a leadership style. It is crucial to remember that these positive effects were only observed in response to an isolated safety-related event involving employees. If abusive behavior becomes routine, extends beyond safety issues, or becomes a constant characteristic of the superior, the positive effects are likely to disappear. The overbearing boss will not find redemption here.
Venturing beyond the authors’ conclusions, it is worth highlighting the significance of such events and suggesting that companies pay closer attention to them—not just for statistical recording or incident reporting purposes. As this research suggests, these events, even when they end positively, have lasting effects and consequences. They leave cognitive and emotional imprints, induce behavioral or cognitive changes, and fuel anecdotes that become part of the workplace culture. Over time, they help shape the daily environment of employees and the local safety context, which in turn influences attitudes, behaviors, and the reception and ownership of safety initiatives.
This research finally sheds light on an asymmetry between men and women, as the positive effects are only observed when the abusive superior is a man. However, it should be noted that while men benefit from positive judgments, women are not outright condemned. Rather, it seems that the presence of security concerns has no particular effect when the superior is a woman. The behavior of an abusive female superior is judged in the same way as during an event with no security implications.
This is certainly an important finding with obvious practical implications, even though it is difficult to see how to address this issue. On this point, the article does not provide much insight. Indeed, the researchers rely on the classic argument of gender stereotypes. Brutal behavior aligns with the male stereotype, whereas women are expected to exhibit supportive behavior. In the context of a security-related event, an outburst of aggression from a man does not come as a surprise given gender stereotypes, whereas it does when it comes from a woman. The researchers suggest that the female stereotype "wins" in the case of a woman, preventing the employee from interpreting the female superior’s outburst of anger as a positive sign of concern for their safety. However, the female stereotype, while excluding brutality, precisely includes this dimension of concern for others. In short, the researchers' explanation of this difference between men and women is, in my opinion, not very convincing. Their practical recommendation on this point is merely to advocate for employee awareness training on gender stereotypes and their consequences. This seems rather insufficient.
Conversely, should female managers be advised to suppress their outbursts of anger, even when there are direct safety concerns? Should they be encouraged to align with the female stereotype by expressing their involvement through tears rather than shouting? This is obviously a ridiculous suggestion. It only serves to highlight the difficulty we face regarding this issue. The fact remains, however, and the managers of these frontline managers would be wise to take it into account.
Finally, to conclude the discussion on gender, one might wonder whether the research findings, which depend on the gender of the superior, might also depend on the gender of the employee. Apparently not. The researchers conducted their tests on both men and women and accounted for this difference in their calculations. But they do not comment on it. One might therefore assume that the employee's gender has no significant effect. However, in my opinion, this remains a question worth exploring further.
In conclusion
Regarding the virtues of authority, hierarchy, and reprimands, let's not rehabilitate anything, as we do not know enough. But let's open up these questions, as they have been sidelined for too long. This was likely necessary to overcome certain deadlocks (rules and hierarchy as the sole guarantors of safety) or to avoid certain simplifications (human error). We are probably advanced enough now to no longer fear falling back into these traps and to consider that unsympathetic behaviors may nonetheless have certain virtues.
