Nobody likes a bad boss. Or do they? According to a new study, the answer is: maybe, if he or she gets results. According to “Perpetuating Abusive Supervision: Third Party Reactions to Abuse in the Workplace,” bosses who behave badly may be allowed to run amuck, depending on their productivity.

The effect a tantrum-prone supervisor can have on the employees taking the abuse has been looked at before, but this study by University of Iowa researchers is the first to examine how workers who weren’t specifically targeted react. Not surprisingly, one of their primary concerns is not becoming a target themselves. But, in an unexpected workplace take on “the ends justify the means,” participants in the study also showed a remarkable willingness to overlook the boss’ behavior.

In fact, the results hinted at a larger and rather shocking possibility: that managerial style has very little to do with a supervisor’s perceived effectiveness at all.

To gather their data, the researchers had a group of subjects read about a fictitious CEO that portrayed him either as a high performer or a low performer and as either a verbally abusive person or not abusive. When asked to rate the CEO, the subjects gave high marks to the productive high performing CEO no matter his management style. In contrast, the non-abusive but poorly performing CEO was given low marks as an executive, despite his likeability.

The researchers said this could have an impact on how companies evaluate employees because previous studies show that employees who feel they are abused are less productive. Since most organizations rate employees using some kind of third-party assessment — by a boss or co-worker, for instance — organizations that do not specifically have a system in place to assess a supervisor’s behavior may be allowing behavior that leads to lower productivity in the long term.

That last point is, of course, key for human resources professionals. What this study is saying, in effect, is that employee evaluations by their peers may not reveal everything we need to know about hostile workplaces.

The consequences for falling into a false sense of security can be dire. Just last month, ironically, the Conference Board released a report which found that job satisfaction in the U.S. is at its lowest level in two decades. To say this is a long-term trend may be a significant understatement, since the group’s first survey was taken in 1987. The 2009 results found 45 percent of U.S. workers satisfied with their job, a steep drop from 61 percent in 1987, and the lowest level in the history of the polling. There, was, unfortunately, no real upside:

The drop in job satisfaction between 1987 and 2009 covers all categories in the survey, from interest in work (down 18.9 percentage points) to job security (down 17.5 percentage points) and crosses all four of the key drivers of employee engagement: job design, organizational health, managerial quality, and extrinsic rewards.

‘Challenging and meaningful work is vitally important to engaging American workers,’ adds John Gibbons, program director of employee engagement research and services at The Conference Board. ‘Widespread job dissatisfaction negatively affects employee behavior and retention, which can impact enterprise-level success.’ In fact, 22 percent of respondents said they don’t expect to be in their current job in a year.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study aren’t pretty. While it’s tempting to say that this must be fallout from the recession, the trending over time suggests that there are core values at stake here. A healthy workplace—even in these challenging times—is more important than ever.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS