Having an intimidating boss can actually be inspiring to people who view the workplace as. a competition. (© ArtFamily - stock.adobe.com)
In a Nutshell
- People who see the world as a ruthless competition (“competitive worldview”) tend to respect harsh, antagonistic leaders.
- Those who believe the world is cooperative generally see the same managers as incompetent and misguided.
- Real-world examples like the viral Olive Garden manager show how these divisions play out.
- Despite the effect, most people still prefer collaborative leaders overall.
NEW YORK — That manager who thrives on making unreasonable demands, publicly calling out mistakes, and treating the workplace like a battlefield? Whether people see such hardline leaders as cunning strategists or clueless bullies depends largely on how they view the world itself.
Research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reveals that people who believe the world is fundamentally a “dog-eat-dog” environment where only the strongest survive are far more likely to respect and even admire abrasive, forceful managers. Meanwhile, those who see the world as more cooperative and collaborative tend to view the same aggressive leadership style as a sign of poor judgment and ineffective management.
The research, conducted by Christine Q. Nguyen and Daniel R. Ames from Columbia Business School, explains why some employees seem to gravitate toward demanding, tough-as-nails bosses while others find such leadership styles unbearable.
“Those who see the social world as a competitive jungle tend to attach greater value to antagonism, responding with heightened tolerance or even appreciation for leaders who show it,” the researchers write. “Those who see the world as collaborative and caring, on the other hand, may often view antagonistic leaders as hopelessly misguided and ineffective.”
The Olive Garden Message That Divided America
The researchers were inspired by a real-world example that went viral: an Olive Garden manager in Kansas who sent a scathing message to employees about calling in sick. The manager’s note warned employees that “if you call off, you might as well go out and look for another job” and declared that “Us, collectively as a management team have had enough.”
When the message was picked up by news outlets, public reactions were sharply divided. Some observers called the manager incompetent and harsh, while others praised the no-nonsense approach, with one person commenting, “I wish there were more managers like this.”
“The public response to that note was a perfect real-world illustration of our core idea. Some people were appalled; others thought it was exactly the kind of tough love that workplaces need,” Nguyen tells StudyFinds. “That range in reactions captured what we were trying to understand: why some people recoil at antagonistic behavior while others admire it. It gave us a compelling case study to test whether people’s reactions were really driven by their competitive worldview — and they were.”
Testing Worldviews in the Lab and Real World
The researchers conducted seven studies involving more than 2,000 participants to test their theory. They measured what they call “competitive worldview”: basically, how strongly people believe the social world is cutthroat and rewards ruthless tactics.
In one experiment, participants read scenarios about managers who either used tough, intimidating tactics or warm, team-focused approaches. Those with a strong survival-of-the-fittest mindset consistently rated the antagonistic managers as more competent and effective leaders. Participants with more cooperative worldviews showed the opposite pattern, viewing antagonistic managers as less capable.
The researchers also asked participants to evaluate real-world CEOs from a list that included Tim Cook of Apple, Mary Barra of General Motors, and others. People with more of a dog-eat-dog outlook tended to assume these successful leaders had acted aggressively during their rise to the top, and believed that style explained their success.
When the team surveyed working adults about their current managers, they found a similar split: people with a hardline view of the world were more satisfied and motivated under bosses who leaned on intimidation. Those who believe in collaboration reported lower morale with the same kind of boss.
When Tough Management Actually Pays Off
The findings certainly bring perspective in a world where more employees prefer managers who are sensitive to their workers’ personalities. People with competitive worldviews don’t just tolerate antagonistic leadership; they actively prefer it. These employees were more likely to say they would choose to work for a demanding manager and less likely to quit jobs under tough bosses.
Why? The researchers found that people who see the world as a tournament to the top genuinely believe that abrasive tactics get results. They see this behavior as practical — a necessary tool for achieving goals — while people with a cooperative mindset expect such behavior to backfire.
One study even looked at seasoned MBA and Executive MBA students. Despite their experience, the same pattern emerged: students who saw life as a constant contest rated aggressive managers in business scenarios as smarter and more effective. Those with a more affiliative belief system favored leaders who fostered teamwork.
The Self-Reinforcing Workplace Culture
Nguyen and Ames also found evidence that this difference in mindset can reshape entire workplaces over time. Companies with harsh leaders may develop a revolving door: workers who dislike aggressive styles tend to quit, while those who see a cutthroat office as normal stick around, reinforcing the culture.
“Our findings do suggest that worldviews can shape workplace culture in self-reinforcing ways,” says Nguyen. “Thus, if an organization is aiming to develop or maintain a particular kind of culture — collaborative, competitive, or otherwise — then the worldviews of its employees and leaders will inevitably play a role.”
Despite revealing when ruthless leadership might be accepted or even preferred, the study consistently found what the researchers call an “antagonism penalty.” Most people, regardless of worldview, still preferred team-centric leaders overall. The worldview effect didn’t eliminate this preference but rather reduced it among those who see the world as competitive.
“Our research doesn’t show that antagonism is effective — it shows that some people perceive it as more effective than others. In other words, our research is looking at perceived effectiveness rather than actual effectiveness,” explains Nguyen. “No one loves having a boss who’s a jerk! The key takeaway isn’t ‘be tough,’ it’s know your people. … Good leadership means understanding how your behavior is interpreted, and whether it’s helping or hurting your team in the long run.”
Disclaimer: This article summarizes findings from the peer-reviewed paper “Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders.” This summary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice on workplace management or organizational psychology.
StudyFinds’ Q&A With Co-Author Christine Nguyen
What first sparked the idea to study why some people admire harsh, antagonistic leaders? Was there a moment or story that made you think, ‘This needs to be tested?’
CN: We were struck by how differently people react to the same leadership behavior — especially when it’s particularly mean or forceful or disagreeable. There have been signs from some corners in recent years of sympathy for more antagonistic bosses in the workplace. We’ve seen commentary that “assholery” and “bossism” are essential for getting things done and for overall success. And there has been some debate that we observed between a perspective that supports empathy and a perspective that supports “getting tough” and “being a dick.”
We wondered why people might have such different views of how leaders should act. When people see a leader behaving aggressively, some people think the leader is out of line, while others applaud the tough stance. This raised a deeper question for us: Why do people disagree so strongly about whether antagonistic leaders are effective? Why might some people see harsh, intimidating behavior as a sign of needless cruelty and incompetence, while others see it as a case of savvy leadership? We suspected the answer might be not only about the leaders, but also about the people evaluating them, and how those people see the world. That’s what led us to focus on worldview as a lens that might be driving these different evaluations.
The Olive Garden manager example is pretty striking — did you expect a chain restaurant’s sick note to become a social experiment in worldview?
CN: Honestly, no! But the public response to that note was a perfect real-world illustration of our core idea. Some people were appalled; others thought it was exactly the kind of tough love that workplaces need. That range in reactions captured what we were trying to understand: why some people recoil at antagonistic behavior while others admire it. It gave us a compelling case study to test whether people’s reactions were really driven by their competitive worldview — and they were.
Your paper talks about the ‘competitive worldview.’ How stable is that mindset? Do people shift from cutthroat to cooperative as they age or switch industries?
CN: According to the original authors of this construct, social worldviews like competitive worldview seem to be surprisingly stable — even during periods of systemic instability, like the global financial crisis in 2008. Once formed, people’s mindsets can even reinforce themselves by influencing how people see and interpret the world. So it makes sense for this mindset to be stable over time for people.
However, this mindset is not immovable; it’s shaped by the combination of both one’s personality and their social environment. Thus, when one’s social environment changes, their mindsets could change as well, especially if their environment changes in a drastic or lasting way. So, for example, someone who’s spent a lot of time in an industry with a lot of competition and social dominance could become more inclined to see the world as a competitive jungle. And vice versa: if someone switched to an industry that had much less inequality and competition, they could develop a more cooperative view of the world.
We also did see a negative relationship between competitive worldview and age, meaning that younger people on average had a more cutthroat view of the world than older people. That said, we’re still exploring why and when these shifts happen, and what triggers them.
Past research by other social scientists has also shown that people have a preference for tough leaders in hard times, such as crises or conflict. Our research suggests that some people see those conditions as pervasive or permanent, such that the world is filled with endless conflict. For these people, tough leadership is adaptive and even necessary.
Did anything in your findings surprise you? Was there a result that made you do a double-take?
CN: We expected worldview to play a role, but we were surprised by just how consistent, strong, and far-reaching its effects were. People’s worldviews shaped how they judged not just fictional managers or public figures like CEOs, but even how they responded to their own real-life bosses. High competitive worldview also sometimes even led people not only to judge toughness more positively, but also to judge warmth and kindness more negatively.
One especially eye-opening result was how competitive worldview influenced people’s beliefs about how real-world CEOs rose to power. For instance, people high in competitive worldview assumed that successful leaders like Apple’s Tim Cook or GM’s Mary Barra must have acted antagonistically on their rise to the top, and that those tough behaviors directly contributed to their success. That kind of post-hoc narrative, filling in the blanks in a way that aligns with your beliefs, showed us that CWV shapes not only how we judge people, but also how we think they got where they are.
Another surprising pattern emerged when we looked at how employees felt about their own managers. Employees higher in competitive worldview said that they would be more likely to choose and stay with, and less likely to leave, tough managers, than those lower in competitive worldview; they reported the reverse for friendly managers. This pattern led us to wonder: Did employees who see the world as a competitive jungle actually end up working for harsher managers? Indeed, when we asked employees about their current managers, we found exactly that. Employees higher in competitive worldview currently had more antagonistic managers compared to those lower in competitive worldview, while those lower in competitive worldview were likely to be working for warmer managers. (For example, over three quarters of people in the bottom quartile of competitive jungle beliefs said that their boss would “never” be ready to upset other people or bruise their feelings, compared to only a third of people in the top quartile of competitive jungle beliefs.) This suggested to us that, over time, through sorting processes like selective attraction (choosing jobs and bosses) and attrition (leaving jobs and bosses), antagonistic leaders may find themselves surrounded by the subset of high-CWV employees with stronger competitive jungle beliefs, who are more tolerant, and even approving, of their antagonism.
What would you say to a manager reading this who thinks, ‘Perfect, this proves my harsh style is good leadership’?
CN: Not so fast! Our research doesn’t show that antagonism is effective — it shows that some people perceive it as more effective than others. In other words, our research is looking at perceived effectiveness rather than actual effectiveness. And in fact, across our studies, everyone generally rated friendly leaders more positively than harsh ones. The difference was that people higher in competitive worldview penalized antagonism less. So while you might receive tolerance or support from certain employees, others might find your style draining or alienating. And the consensus overall toward your harsh style might be more negative than positive.
No one loves having a boss who’s a jerk! The key takeaway isn’t “be tough”—it’s know your people. Our work highlights how leaders can shape others’ evaluations of them. Whether a leader is hard-charging or more accommodating, they might be well-served by making the case that their approach is adaptive and effective — that their style is well-suited to the situation. Good leadership means understanding how your behavior is interpreted, and whether it’s helping or hurting your team in the long run.
You studied MBA students, working adults, and online participants — did you see big differences in how people in different industries or roles responded to antagonistic leaders?
CN: What surprised us was how consistent our findings were across very different populations. Whether people were MBA students, restaurant workers, other full-time employees, or other online participants, their competitive worldview reliably shaped how they responded to antagonistic leadership. We didn’t find major differences based on participant group, and we didn’t directly measure industry or role, so we can’t say definitively how people in different industries or roles might respond differently.
But we did find that MBA students tended to have more competitive worldviews on average than our other samples. We also saw differences in CWV across different people: men tend to have more competitive worldviews than women, conservatives tend to have more competitive worldviews than liberals, and younger people tend to have more competitive worldviews than older people.
That said, it’s entirely plausible that some industries might attract or cultivate more competitive worldviews, which could influence perceptions and norms of leadership behavior. That’s a fascinating direction for future research.
Your results suggest a self-reinforcing workplace culture — do you think companies should actively screen for worldview fit?
CM: Our findings do suggest that worldviews can shape workplace culture in self-reinforcing ways. Thus, if an organization is aiming to develop or maintain a particular kind of culture — collaborative, competitive, or otherwise — then the worldviews of its employees and leaders will inevitably play a role. That influence can happen through top-down processes, where managers encourage and reinforce certain mindsets in their employees through their own actions, or through bottom-up dynamics, as employees selectively join, stay, or leave based on whether their worldview aligns with the dominant culture.
That said, actively screening for worldview fit is a tricky proposition. On the one hand, shared mindsets might reduce internal friction, boost coordination, and strengthen workplace culture. On the other hand, too much similarity can encourage groupthink and amplify unhealthy norms. For example, it’s possible that a boss who is a jerk could create and live in their own bubble, attracting and retaining people who tolerate their behavior, giving the boss a sense that their approach may be effective and even necessary. Diversity in views is important too — you want to make sure it’s not the case that everyone sees the world in exactly the same way.
What do you wish more people understood about the hidden psychology of leadership and how we judge competence?
CN: This work showed us that what might look one way to one person might look completely different to someone else. When we think about how we react to the leaders around us, we have to understand that our reactions may depend not only on the leaders themselves, but also on our own theories of the wider social world, and our idiosyncratic understanding of how it operates, what it requires, and what it rewards.
Finally, on a fun note — do you have a ‘tough boss’ story from your own career that shaped how you see leadership?
CN: Not for me in recent years, thankfully — if I can call Daniel my “boss,” he’s pretty much the ideal. He’s the perfect blend of friendly and firm: empathetic, understanding, funny, and encouraging, but also willing to call me out when I need it. The model he’s set has definitely shaped how I think about what leadership can look like.
That said, we’ve both had experiences with leaders who pushed hard, and we’ve seen firsthand how differently people respond to that. That variability planted the seed for this research. If people can have such divergent reactions to the same leadership behavior, maybe the difference isn’t just in the leader, but in us: how we see the world, what we expect from others, and what we think it takes to succeed.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers conducted seven studies with a total of 2,065 participants, primarily from online research platforms and business school students. They measured participants’ “competitive worldview” (CWV)—the extent to which people see the social world as a competitive jungle versus a cooperative environment. Participants evaluated managers and leaders through various methods: rating fictional scenarios about antagonistic versus collaborative managers, assessing real-world CEOs, evaluating an actual harsh message from an Olive Garden manager, and reporting on their own workplace experiences. The studies used both correlational approaches and experimental manipulations to test whether worldview affects leadership perceptions.
Results
People with highly competitive worldviews consistently rated antagonistic managers as more competent and effective compared to those with cooperative worldviews. This pattern held across fictional scenarios, real-world leaders, and participants’ actual managers. Employees with competitive worldviews reported higher job satisfaction and motivation under demanding bosses, while those with cooperative worldviews showed the opposite pattern. The effect was mediated by beliefs about behavioral impact—people with competitive worldviews believed harsh tactics were more likely to produce desired results. The study also found evidence of workplace sorting, where competitive-minded employees were more likely to choose and stay with antagonistic managers.
Limitations
The research relied primarily on online survey samples and U.S. participants, potentially limiting generalizability to other populations and cultures. All studies used self-report measures rather than observing actual behavior. The focus was specifically on workplace contexts and organizational leadership, not testing whether effects extend to other domains. Most studies involved scenarios or past experiences rather than real-time workplace dynamics. The researchers also note that social desirability bias may have influenced competitive worldview responses, as mean scores were consistently below the scale midpoint.
Funding and Disclosures
The paper does not explicitly mention funding sources or potential conflicts of interest. The authors thank several colleagues for their comments on the research and note that no published work currently exists using the same data. All study materials, data, and analysis scripts have been made publicly available on ResearchBox.
Publication Information
“Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders” by Christine Q. Nguyen and Daniel R. Ames was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, on June 23, 2025, American Psychological Association. The paper includes supplemental materials available at https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000456.supp.
