Most people recognize that we shouldn't actively harm others at work. Yet people tend to assume that failing to act is relatively benign or inconsequential .
Authors
- Christine C. Hwang
Postdoctoral scholar in the Department of Management, Lang School of Business and Economics, University of Guelph, University of Guelph
- Daniel L. Brady
Associate Professor, Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University
- Laurie J. Barclay
Full Professor and Lang Chair in Leadership, University of Guelph
- Robert J. Bies
Professor of Management, Georgetown University
Imagine witnessing an employee being belittled by a coworker. As a manager, should you step in or could staying on the sidelines give employees room to resolve conflict themselves?
Our new research demonstrates that "perceived managerial inaction" - the belief that a manager has failed to act in response to a negative experience - can have devastating consequences in the workplace. We examined how employees react when they believe their manager has failed to respond to a harmful or disrespectful incident.
Across an experiment and surveys involving hundreds of employees, we measured whether people felt their manager had a duty to intervene, whether they believed that duty was violated and how this shaped their trust, well-being and behaviour.
What is perceived managerial inaction?
Because of their formal position of authority, managers have the obligation to protect their employees from harm and maintain a safe and ethical work environment .
We use the term perceived employee-directed managerial inaction to describe situations in which employees believe their managers have not acted to prevent or address potential harm to them. Three conditions need to be present for employees to perceive managerial inaction:
There was a potential for harm to the employee;
The manager was aware of this potential for harm, and
The manager violated perceived managerial responsibilities or obligations by failing to act in response to this potential for harm.
When these conditions are met, employees interpret the absence of a response as a meaningful choice.
Why it matters for individuals and organizations
Perceived managerial inaction has real, measurable effects on employees' well-being and their relationship with the manager.
Our research reveals that even a single instance of perceived managerial inaction can result in profound consequences. Employees can lose trust in their manager, even if there was a pre-existing positive relationship and their manager had demonstrated positive leadership behaviours.
Perceived managerial inaction can also undermine managers' effectiveness. Our studies indicated that it can motivate employees to protect themselves from the manager by withdrawing support, engaging in negative gossiping and resisting work-related requests.
Organizations also face risks, as there is increasing momentum to hold them accountable for managers' inaction. As high-profile cases show - such as the California lawsuit alleging that Activision Blizzard managers failed to " take reasonable steps " to protect employees from discrimination - inaction can escalate from an interpersonal issue to a legal and reputational one.
Addressing common misconceptions
Many managers underestimate the impact of doing nothing. Our research highlights four misconceptions that often keep leaders from acting and the reality behind them.
Misconception #1: Inaction is benign, and employees won't notice or negatively react to managerial inaction.
Reality: Employees can be highly attuned to inaction because it has significant implications for how they perceive their manager and navigate their work environment.
Misconception #2: Inaction can empower employees or help them grow.
Reality: Even if managers withheld action with positive intentions, employees experience inaction as a violation of managerial responsibilities.
Misconception #3: The negative effect of managerial inaction is short-lived.
Reality: Managerial inaction can cause short- and long-term damage to employees' well-being, managerial effectiveness and organizations at large.
Misconception #4: The negative effect is limited to the employee who perceived that the manager failed to act.
Reality: By failing to address harmful experiences, managers may inadvertently signal that mistreatment will be tolerated , which can normalize mistreatment within the workplace and increase its frequency.
Practical recommendations for managers
Managers are not only responsible for their actions, but also for failing to act to protect employees from harm. If inaction occurs or is perceived to have occurred, managers can take steps to repair trust and prevent harm:
1. Talk to the affected employee about inaction and address the source of the harm.
Listen to and support employees, including acknowledging their experience and any harm that occurred. Provide a clear explanation for why you did not act, without being defensive. Be honest if you were not sure what was happening at the time or if you did not know how to act. Take appropriate steps to remedy the situation: apologize, acknowledge responsibility and clearly communicate the steps you will take to repair harm and prevent future occurrences.
2. Recognize that the impact of the situation may include coworkers and the team.
Those who witnessed or heard about the incident may need support or benefit from debriefing the incident. If the negative experience involved employee mistreatment, reinforce that any mistreatment is against organizational norms will not be tolerated and consistently apply negative consequences.
3. Set an appropriate tone for the team to mitigate the negative impact of inaction.
Set clear expectations for appropriate organizational conduct and encourage employees to voice unpleasant work experiences while also addressing employees' concerns.
Managers must recognize that "with great power comes great responsibility." Fulfilling managerial obligations is critical to support employees as well as avoid negative implications for managers and organizations. Action, even if it is not perfect, can enable managers to fulfil their responsibilities and help create workplaces where people feel safe and valued.
Christine C. Hwang receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Daniel L. Brady and Robert J. Bies do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
