Managers often sabotage talented employees due to intense competition—Harvard study
What's the story
A recent study by Harvard researchers has revealed a disturbing trend in competitive workplaces.
The research indicates that colleagues and even supervisors may intentionally undermine each other's performance for personal gain, such as promotions or bonuses.
This behavior is not limited to peers but extends to managers who may jeopardize the prospects of talented subordinates to safeguard their positions and ward off potential competition, according to Forbes India.
Study findings
Harvard study uncovers prevalence of top-down sabotage
The study was led by Hashim Zaman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Laboratory for Innovation Sciences at Harvard, and Karim Lakhani, a professor of business administration at Harvard.
They surveyed 335 executives and found that nearly 30% of them had witnessed sabotage within their organizations.
Interestingly, 71% reported observing top-down sabotage while a small fraction (5%) confessed to undermining their direct reports.
Impact assessment
Sabotage in the workplace: A threat to organizational culture
Zaman explained to Forbes India that while managers are expected to prioritize the company's interests, personal interests often take precedence.
He said, "In a hierarchical organization, your manager may see you as a future peer, competitor for further promotions or even a replacement risk, so they have an incentive to use their authority to mitigate your growth ahead of time."
This behavior not only hampers the careers of talented employees but can also negatively impact organizational culture and corporate performance.
Sabotage motives
Victim experiences and motivations behind managerial sabotage
The study also found that nearly 28% of the executives surveyed said they had been victims of top-down sabotage in their organizations.
When asked what drives managers to sabotage their subordinates' chances, roughly 3% said financial concerns while almost 21% were afraid of losing their status.
About a quarter (24%) said both status and financial concerns drove managers to hurt employees, suggesting complex motivations behind the toxic behavior.