Survival Mode Leadership: The Hidden Costs of Managing by Fear
Issue 217, June 17, 2025
When employees hear their manager's footsteps approaching, their palms shouldn't start sweating. When a team meeting is called, hearts shouldn't race with dread. Yet across organizations worldwide, this is exactly what's happening. A recent study from Staffing Industry Analysts found that 75% of workers have left a job specifically to escape a toxic boss. The number one driver of workplace toxicity? Fear-based leadership.
This begs the question, why are we afraid? Why do those who are led by fear cave into the fearmongers? Why do institutions and organizations with leaders who lead by fear appear to succeed? As a species, we are biologically programmed to succeed and survive. At 2040, we have explored "the survival of the fittest" as it relates to, and manifests in organizations with the conclusion that our survival rate increases when there is collaboration and cooperation. So, how does that explain the growth of a workplace and societal culture built on fear and intimidation? How does it explain leaders who cannot operate without their own personal fears influencing their decision-making? And how does it justify the serious threat of toxic co-workers?
Leading by Fear
Leading by fear is both a strategy and a tactic that some use to motivate performance. Fear is also what leaders feel when they are thrust into situations or have to deal with problems that they have very little knowledge about or experience to handle. Anxiety builds, stress permeates, and mental clarity diminishes when a false bravado fills leaders’ minds believing they can do it all and they know best.
Fear in this context stems paradoxically from deep insecurity as well as the overconfidence that a leader believes he or she can rise to the occasion. In most instances, that fear-driven insecurity feeds myriad tactical decisions that can destroy even the best-laid strategies and plans. On the surface it may be changing a department’s marketing strategy, suggesting a new product line, or creating a series of events. But eventually, this insecure overconfidence can lead to the failure and collapse of an entire organization’s structure.
Leading by fear becomes a narcissistic survival strategy where little if any input from others is actually heard...or even wanted. But the truth is that we all must admit we don't know what we don't know and accept that others may know what we don't and know more than we do. To succeed, we need others who have the knowledge and skills that we do not. As we said, community and collaboration lead to survival.
We have written often about the downsides of leading by egocentric certainty and hubris. We have also cautioned about the unintended consequences of poorly informed knee-jerk decision-making. And have warned about acting on the wrong information with misinformed urgency. Managing by fear can result in both outputs or outcomes that can bring a workforce and an organization to its knees.
Facing Fear
Today's environment generates unprecedented stress. The market is dynamically changing; consumers are unsettled, trapped on a roller coaster out of their control; and organizations that seek certainty to make business decisions have little certainty to grasp hold of. Managing the level of uncertainty, change and transformation is nearly impossible without a holistic understanding of how factors and variables are related and interdependent. One uncertainty shifts to another when one thing changes, which in turn changes or influences everything else.
Finding solid ground anytime soon is unlikely. Recognizing how leading by fear is driven by insecurity is the first step in realizing that success is not a one-person proposition. Acknowledging that reliance on a team of capable, qualified, experienced individuals (who may know more than we do) helps ensure that we have the right people with the right knowledge around the table. Otherwise, organizations may find themselves in a fast race to the bottom.
Facing fear has both individual and organizational consequences to reverse a pattern where an organization and its leadership flail in tactics and strategies that don't seem to go anywhere but backward. In our book, The Truth About Transformation, we argue the necessity of roles and also discuss the threats of power positioning and power plays in the workplace. Power positioning encompasses words, gestures, decisions and emotions to overpower or impose power over another or a group of individuals. Power positioning is actually motivated by fear and camouflages the insecurity of leaders. Power positioning comes full circle with the manifestation of fear-led management that makes the workforce fearful if they don’t do whatever the leader specifies.
A Lesson in Physiology: Understanding Fear
To understand why fear-based leadership is so destructive, we must first understand what fear does to the human brain and body—responses that don't disappear when we walk through office doors.
Fear is a fundamental human emotion, orchestrated by complex brain circuitry, which detects threats and initiates the fear response. This involves both physiological and behavioral changes to prepare the body for "fight or flight." The amygdala, a small, almond-shaped structure deep within the brain, acts as a central hub for fear processing, rapidly evaluating stimuli for potential threats. It triggers physiological responses like increased heart rate and release of stress hormones.
Other parts of the brain play roles including the hippocampus which contextualizes fear and remembers where and when a threat was encountered. It helps distinguish safe from dangerous situations based on past experiences. The prefrontal cortex is involved in regulating fear, particularly in learning to not be afraid and suppressing fear responses when they are no longer appropriate. The brainstem is involved in initiating the behavioral responses to fear, such as freezing, flight, or fighting.
When a threat is perceived, we experience physical reactions, including increased heart rate and blood pressure, a release of stress hormones to prepare the body for immediate action, breathing becomes faster and shallower, digestion slows down, and blood flow is redirected away from nonessential organs.
This isn't a Biology 101 lesson for academic purposes—these same neurological and physiological reactions occur in the workplace when an organization is based on management by fear and intimidation. What happens to that employee whose heart starts racing when her boss approaches? Her brain literally cannot distinguish between a saber-toothed tiger and a screaming manager.
Fear-Based Leadership: When Insecurity Rules
This biological understanding reveals why managing by fear and intimidation, also known as management by intimidation (MBI) or fear-based management, is fundamentally flawed. This leadership style relies on creating a climate of fear and anxiety among employees to motivate them to work, characterized by tactics like threats, public shaming, micromanagement, and unrealistic expectations.
Leading by fear is typically a mask for insecurity leading to control and intimidation. Narcissistic leaders are often bullies and belligerent. They are micromanagers and frequently practice public humiliation and verbal abuse. They are afraid of being exposed and inadequate. They don’t listen because they believe they know best. They fear losing control and making the wrong decision, which can lead to analysis paralysis and avoidance of making decisions and solving problems. They rely on others to take on these accountabilities and then berate them if they don't agree with the results.
Fear-led leaders avoid conflict and difficult conversations, relying on a command-and-control management model. They fear change and uncertainty, and are predictable in their unpredictability, making it difficult to distinguish the chaotic from the consequential. They act on a whim, use social platforms as megaphones and demand absolute loyalty. What's worse, they fundamentally mistake fear for authority, a critical management skill. They also replace healthy caution with paralyzing fear.
History Lessons: Fear in Action
The evidence for fear-based leadership's destructive power isn't just theoretical—we can see it playing out in real-time across politics and business. Liz Ryan writes in Forbes describing recent examples of public leaders who have been accused of leading through fear and intimidation:
Vladimir Putin: Accused of using fear and intimidation to control his country and consolidate power. Some suggest his communication strategy includes issuing stark warnings to domestic opponents, particularly before and after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Viktor Orbán: The Hungarian Prime Minister has been accused of leading through authoritarian populism and consolidating power through control of state institutions.
Nayib Bukele: El Salvador's President is cited as an example of an elected autocrat who consolidated power by controlling state agencies, including those responsible for elections.
She adds that the use of fear and intimidation is not limited to political leaders. Some business leaders have also been accused of employing these tactics.
Elon Musk: Musk's approach to management has been criticized for being autocratic and demanding, with some citing instances of public criticism and the fostering of a culture of fear. However, others recognize his ability to inspire innovation and achieve ambitious goals.
Travis Kalanick: The former Uber CEO was known for an aggressive leadership style focused on rapid growth, which led to a toxic work environment and his eventual ouster.
Steve Jobs: While undeniably a visionary, Jobs was also known for being demanding and, at times, harsh with employees. Some describe his leadership style as involving intimidation, although others point to his ability to inspire intense dedication.
The Intended and Unintended Consequences of MBI
While MBI seems to be a tactic to control employees and gain immediate results, the reality is starkly different. Managing by fear and intimidation is ineffective, detrimental, and ultimately unsustainable in the modern workplace. Anecdotally, this approach kills motivation, diminishes creativity, fosters resentment, and leads to high turnover rates.
While MBI may produce short-term results, it ultimately leads to decreased productivity, high turnover, and a toxic work environment. A recent high-profile example of MBI is the aforementioned Elon Musk. Jeremy Campbell, CEO of Black Isle Group writes, "Elon Musk's directive, requiring federal employees to submit weekly work summaries or risk termination, sparked debate about the effectiveness of fear-based management. While Musk's methods may drive short-term compliance, research and real-world examples show that leading with fear ultimately backfires, reducing morale, fostering resentment and leading to high turnover."
Campbell adds, "Fear-based leadership stifles the three intrinsic drivers of motivation: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Without autonomy, employees feel micromanaged and lack the freedom to make meaningful contributions. Without mastery, they are unable to develop their skills and take pride in their work. And without purpose, they struggle to see how their efforts contribute to a greater goal. Instead of inspiring teams, fear-based tactics create a workforce focused on survival rather than success."
Research and expert analysis consistently reveal why managing by fear and intimidation is fundamentally destructive:
Toxic Work Environment: Creates a culture of mistrust, anxiety, and stress, damaging employee morale and job satisfaction.
Decreased Productivity and Innovation: Employees focus on avoiding mistakes and punishment rather than taking risks and generating new ideas.
High Turnover: Talented individuals seek healthier work environments where they feel valued and respected.
Reduced Creativity: Employees are less likely to collaborate, share ideas, or offer constructive criticism, stifling innovation.
Negative Impact on the Bottom Line: Decreased productivity, high turnover, and damage to reputation all negatively impact business performance.
Increased Stress and Anxiety: Fear-based management can lead to high levels of stress, anxiety, and even depression among employees.
Erosion of Trust: Fear-based leadership damages trust between employees and management, hindering collaboration and teamwork.
Physical and Mental Health Problems: Chronic stress associated with fear-based management can lead to physical health issues like digestive problems, insomnia, and high blood pressure.
Creates a Culture of Secrecy and Dishonesty: Employees may hide mistakes or problems to avoid punishment, hindering transparency and problem-solving.
Hinders Effective Communication: Fear discourages open and honest communication, making it difficult to address issues and improve performance.
The Antidote to Management by Fear and Intimidation
The solution isn't complex, but it requires intentional leadership transformation. Fear-driven workplaces push employees into survival mode, making them become defensive rather than allowing them to innovate and excel, according to Campbell. Studies show that when people feel threatened at work, their creativity, collaboration and problem-solving abilities suffer.
Instead of managing by fear, leaders can transform a workforce by:
Building Trust and Respect: Creating a safe and supportive environment where employees feel valued and respected, leaders can build relationships based on empathy, honesty, and open communication.
Encouraging Open Communication: Fostering an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing ideas and concerns and provide feedback without fear of reprisal.
Providing Constructive Feedback: Focusing on helping employees improve their performance through positive and constructive feedback and acknowledging and celebrating employee achievements and contributions.
Empowering Employees: Giving employees the autonomy and resources they need to succeed including the necessary tools and freedom to excel.
Leading by Example: Modeling the behaviors, values and shared purpose that the organization wants to see in its employees.
Embracing a Growth Mindset: View mistakes as learning opportunities and encourage continuous improvement.
The Choice Every Leader Faces
Great leaders don't demand productivity, they inspire it by fostering trust, empowerment and a sense of purpose. Honesty and transparency are key. The New York Times reported on the honest vulnerability of Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski: "What do you say to those who are afraid? And it was one of those moments where you're looking out to this sea of people, and they needed to hear the honest answer that not only do I hear how afraid you are, but we are all afraid of this uncertainty. We are all afraid of what may be coming next because we do not know."
Instead of forcing employees into rigid, fear-driven structures, organizations should adopt strategies that foster trust, value employees and provide meaningful opportunities that lead to greater productivity and success. As Campbell says, "Great leaders don't lead with fear, they lead with trust. Build a workplace where people want to stay, grow and give their best – not one where they're merely surviving."
Here's the uncomfortable truth: Every leader has a choice to make. You can continue operating from a place of insecurity, wielding fear as a weapon to mask your own shortcomings. Or you can choose the harder path—the path of authentic leadership that builds rather than breaks and inspires rather than intimidates.
The question isn't whether your organization will face challenges, uncertainty, or pressure. The question is whether you'll respond to those challenges by creating more fear or by building the trust and resilience that actually drives sustainable success.
Your employees are watching. Your customers are watching. Your competition is watching. But most importantly, you're setting the tone for the kind of leader—and the kind of human being—you choose to be. The next time you feel a familiar surge of fear-driven urgency to control, intimidate, or power through—pause. Remember that your greatest strength as a leader isn't your ability to create fear or react based on your insecurities, but rather your capacity to create a sense of safety in an uncertain world. That's not just good leadership. That's the kind of leadership our organizations, our communities, and our world desperately need.
The choice is yours. What will it be?
Explore this issue and all 216 past issues>
Get “The Truth about Transformation”
The 2040 construct to change and transformation. What’s the biggest reason organizations fail? They don’t honor, respect, and acknowledge the human factor. We have compiled a playbook for organizations of all sizes to consider all the elements that comprise change and we have included some provocative case studies that illustrate how transformation can quickly derail.
Now available in paperback.