Through a relentless focus on results at any cost and no consequences for the use of aggressive and abusive tactics to achieve them, our corporations inadvertently encourage bullying and other forms of bad behavior at work that creates serious harm to employees. We can—and must—do better.

The presence of a toxic work culture is driving away 1 in 5 employees at an annual cost of $44.6 billion to American organizations. How is it that the toxic leaders wreaking havoc in our workplaces are able to achieve organizational success given their negative impact on both employees and their organizations? And why does it seem that there are often no consequences for their abusive behavior? Simply put, they get results—at least in the short term.

Everyone who worked for him knew [that he was a toxic leader], but the people that he worked for had no idea. Nor were they interested in knowing. All they cared about was that he was performing. So, it’s hard to want to stay in an organization like that that only cares about performance and not the manner of performance.

“Getting the job done” and “not failing” are uniformly considered to be a sacrosanct duty among high-achieving leaders. Most employees cannot conceive of not delivering results due to high stakes involved; as a result, their collective focus operates to make the toxic leader look good. When this occurs, the toxic leader not only is credited with getting results, but he also receives the related promotions and rewards, largely based on the great sense of duty and loyalty that his people feel to the organization—but not to him.

The part that was most difficult was knowing that if we succeed, if we work hard . . . if we work our knuckles to the bone, we will succeed, and these guys [the toxic leaders] will benefit from it.

In my experience (and likely yours too), most leaders are typically intense and highly driven individuals. Though they are often very effective, their forceful personalities and passion to meet and exceed goals can cause great distress to employees. Organizations with a culture focused on results at any cost create a situation where individuals with certain personalities seem to thrive.

Due to their social competence and political skills, some high-performance leaders are also able to strategically abuse coworkers and yet continue to be evaluated positively by their supervisor. These individuals tend to suffer from a lack of awareness of their impact on others (or simply don’t care), and clearly wreak havoc in the workplace.

The actions of toxic leaders go beyond what is actually functional for the organization and there are often clear signs of pain, injury, or distress being inflicted on those who get in their way. There seems to be a disconnect about what companies claim to want from leaders and the types of behavior they actually recognize and reward. What tends to be perceived as simply “strong management” in a corporate setting would normally be viewed as confrontational and totally inappropriate outside of the workplace. This type of behavior is rewarded because management turns a blind eye to the process—the way—by which the results are actually obtained.

This situation begs the question then: Why would these leaders continue to engage in such negative behavior? One hypothesis suggests that leaders who exhibit highly aggressive characteristics are narcissistic (self-obsessed), sociopathic (lacking social conscience), or even psychopathic (lacking basic empathy). The term “evil personality” has also been used to explain why some individuals use their power “to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of their own sick selves.”

Similarly, others point to the personal deficiency of the leader and argue that they are, in fact, disturbed individuals who are power-hungry, enjoy hurting innocent people, and lack normal inhibitions and empathy. Still others suggest that these toxic behaviors have little to do with general work-related stress but are a result of an abuse of power that is “knowing and deliberate.”

Others focus less on individual deficiencies and explain that the behavior is due mostly to lack of awareness. These researchers argue that many people simply do not see the distress they are causing and are generally receptive to a different way of managing after they undergo coaching or counseling.  Ultimately, though, it is undisputed that something drives aggression in these individuals beyond the point of generally acceptable social norms. 

Research suggests that aggressive leaders who are abusive to others are more likely to enjoy professional success than even their more competent rivals. Why? Because people are impressed by their dominance. While not universally liked, the most dominant individuals were feared, which led to an increase in their social standing and resulting organizational success. Individuals who were rated as more dominant and prestigious were also rated as more influential. Ironically, while participants preferred leaders with prestige, they were actually more likely to choose dominant leaders. They also tended to be more forgiving of their bad behavior.

These results might help to explain the prevalence and high rate of success among aggressive leaders in business. The business world often calls for (and rewards) arrogant, self-confident and self-important people. But, as anyone who works with and for them knows, they can destabilize and destroy working groups by their abusive and dysfunctional behavior.

Through a relentless focus on results at any cost and no consequences for the use of overly aggressive tactics to achieve them, our organizations inadvertently encourage bad behavior that creates organizational toxicity for employees. As Catherine Ford wryly noted:

“In the real world, bullies are often the winners. They are the so-called tough bosses who have pushed their way to the top over the heads of their weaker and less aggressive colleagues. They are an archetype. They are the bulldogs, the pit bulls, the take-charge guys. They are the Donald Trumps of our lives.”

In the business world, bullies are rewarded. They are lionized. They are imitated and toadied to. Too often, the men and women who report to them adopt the same attitude toward the people they supervise, and so it goes down the line until you have a toxic work environment. Little wonder schools are incapable of routing bullies; the world around them can’t and won’t.

While there is consensus that the behavior of abusive leaders is unacceptable, for some reason they continue to command our interest and attention. There is something about the phenomenon that is either so provocative or so repulsive (or maybe both), that we sometimes inadvertently seem to support it by our failure to intervene. Some have referred to this fascination with those who operate outside the rules as the “charisma of villainy.”

Regardless of the reasons, though, people who work outside of the accepted norms attract and hold our interest—at either extreme. One can be both a genius and a jerk (think Steve Jobs) or just a jerk. These outliers do not follow the accepted corporate rules and accepted norms; instead, they strategically use them to suit their own personal purposes and usually for their own personal gain.

Psychological research over the past few years has begun to examine whether there is any adaptive advantage created by overconfidence at work, especially given that the trait so often leads to errors. The short answer is that even if overconfidence produces sub-par results, others still perceive it positively. In other words, overconfident people are perceived as having more social status—and social status in both the corporate world and political arena is golden.

When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, even if the observers would otherwise judge those violations as rude or flatly wrong. Considering many of the arrogant and dysfunctional people in business, society, and politics that many people seem to venerate despite their bad behavior, these findings actually make a lot of sense. Perhaps it is not the rudeness and corruption that we actually admire, but more that they are allowed to get away with it that intrigues us.

When civilized standards of common decency and respect are not required to be observed in our workplaces, management by fear and intimidation is validated as a legitimate leadership style. I hope you will agree that it is not. We can—and must—do better.

Excerpted with permission from Toxic Leaders and Tough Bosses: Organizational Guardrails to Keep High Performers on Track by Teresa A. Daniel. Published by De Gruyter.