The Reward in the Raised Voice: Why Some Leaders Yell, and What It Costs the Organisation
By Veronica van Nierop, B.Sc; M.NLP; N.E.T.; A.R.T.
I work with leaders on leadership transition, strategic decision-making and organisational culture. In 30 years across finance, IT, healthcare and the arts, I have seen raised voices in boardrooms, operating theatres, trading floors and rehearsal rooms. The usual explanation is that the leader was under too much pressure. New research shows that explanation is only half right.
The study
Researchers at the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business ran two studies, published in the Journal of Management. In the first, 100 supervisors from a range of fields were asked whether and why they engaged in abusive behaviour. In the second, 249 supervisors were surveyed daily for 15 days about whether they had been abusive that day, what preceded it and how they felt afterwards.
The researchers found two distinct motives:
Reactive yelling. Burnout or negative emotion preceded some episodes, and when depleted supervisors yelled, they felt guilty or worse afterwards.
Instrumental yelling. Almost as many supervisors reported yelling on purpose, to make subordinates perform or to reinforce their position as leader. These supervisors felt better afterwards, as if they had accomplished something.
The second finding is the important one. Goal-driven abuse in response to poor performance increased the supervisor's next-day work engagement, and abuse in response to perceived disrespect increased their next-day self-esteem. In other words, the behaviour rewards the person doing it. That makes it self-reinforcing.
The cost falls on everyone else. The lead researcher, who has studied workplace abuse for 20 years, notes that it consistently produces bad outcomes for performance and productivity.
Two points about the evidence need stating clearly. This is organisational psychology based on self-report, not brain imaging. And the researchers identify the supervisor's psychological power as a boundary condition, meaning the effects depend on how powerful the supervisor feels.
A useful simplified metaphor
In my practice I use the three-brain model: instinct, relational and strategic systems. It is a useful simplified metaphor for complex neuroscience and evolutionary brain function, not a literal map of anatomy.
Seen through that lens, the two motives work differently:
Reactive yelling looks like the instinct system taking over when the strategic system is depleted.
Instrumental yelling is more troubling, because the strategic system is choosing it. The leader has learned that it produces compliance and restores status, and the brain registers that as success.
This distinction matters because the two motives need different responses. Stress management alone will not change behaviour that the leader experiences as effective.
What this means for senior leaders
Ask yourself honestly which motive applies when you raise your voice. If it is depletion, the issue is capacity. If it is compliance or status, the issue is your leadership toolkit. The researchers make a clear point: wanting followers to listen, or wanting to establish your role, is legitimate, but there are other ways to achieve it.
What this means for HR and People Directors
Development programmes that treat every outburst as a stress problem will miss roughly half the cases. Selection, 360-degree feedback and coaching should look at the motive behind the behaviour, not only how often it happens. The researchers argue that understanding why supervisors lash out could reshape the leadership training organisations provide and help prevent abuse.
What this means for Boards and CEOs
If a senior leader's aggressive style appears to "get results", the incentive structure may be reinforcing it. A behaviour that improves a leader's short-term sense of achievement while lowering productivity is a cultural risk, and it belongs on the governance agenda.
How the programmes work on this
The aim is not to suppress emotion. It is to strengthen the processes that let a leader choose a response rather than default to one. There are three mechanisms, each grounded in established research.
1. Rebuilding regulatory capacity (reactive yelling). Self-regulation draws on prefrontal resources that become depleted over a long day. Research has found that extended intense cognitive work causes byproducts to build up in the prefrontal cortex, shifting decisions towards low-effort options. Raising your voice is a low-effort option.
The 90-Day Leadership Performance Under Pressure Programme starts by mapping when and where your reactive episodes occur. It then restructures the sequence of decisions, load and recovery across your working week so that high-stakes conversations do not land at points of depletion.
2. Strengthening emotion regulation in the moment (both motives). Two techniques are well supported in the research:
Cognitive reappraisal: deliberately reinterpreting the meaning of a situation.
Affect labelling: putting a feeling into words. Neuroimaging studies have associated it with reduced amygdala response.
Research has also linked psychological resilience to heightened prefrontal activity that helps regulate negative emotion and reduces the weight placed on minor losses. These are trainable skills, and in the programme they are practised against your real scenarios, not generic ones.
3. Replacing the tool, not just removing it (instrumental yelling). If yelling serves a goal, removing it without a substitute leaves a gap, and the old behaviour tends to return. Pillar 3 (Communication and Influence) and Pillar 4 (People Management) of the 5-Pillar Executive Mentoring Programme build alternative ways to achieve compliance and establish authority: clear performance standards, structured accountability conversations, and influence based on credibility rather than fear.
What to expect, stated honestly. Behaviour change takes deliberate practice over time. Results vary with the individual, the motive and the organisational context, and no programme can guarantee a specific outcome. What the programmes provide is a structured, evidence-informed process with baselines and review points, so that progress is measured rather than assumed.
What engagement looks like
Stage 1: 90-Day Leadership Performance Under Pressure Programme. A structured intake identifies your pressure points and response patterns. Targeted protocols follow, with review against a baseline.
Stage 2: 5-Pillar Executive Mentoring Programme. This 180-day programme covers Leadership Transitions, Strategic Decision-Making, Communication and Influence, People Management, and Sustainable Performance. It addresses both the individual leader and the downstream effect on teams, culture and results.
Next step
If raised voices are part of your leadership style, or part of your organisation's culture, the first step is to understand the motive behind them.
Book a conversation → veronicavannierop.com
References
Poulton E, et al. Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors' Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes. Journal of Management, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/01492063251331910. Reported by Neuroscience News, 30 May 2025.
Wiehler A, et al. A neuro-metabolic account of why daylong cognitive work alters the control of economic decisions. Current Biology, 2022.
Lieberman MD, et al. Putting feelings into words: affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 2007; 18(5): 421–428.
Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2005; 9(5): 242–249.
Comments