The silence around aggressive leaders: is domination effective leadership?
October 2, 2025
“There are things I can’t say to my boss, they’d be too aggressive.” “I’ve chosen to be submissive. This is painful, but when I speak up, I’m blamed and threatened.”These are not isolated complaints. They are the lived experiences of people working in organisations today, where aggression is not only present but often mistaken for leadership. By aggression I mean the use of power over others, domination, intimidation, humiliation, even physical outbursts.
And in the same coaching rooms, I have also heard the voices of leaders themselves: “I’m a people leader… until I’m not.” “I value people… until they don’t deliver.” One even told me: “I would rather work with robots than with people.”
Many leaders believe they are people-focused, but only until pressure rises. Others don’t value the relational side at all, reducing leadership to tasks, outputs, systems, and procedures. In both cases, the human system is ignored.
Why aggression looks like leadershipCulturally, we still equate toughness with effectiveness. Mark Zuckerberg recently praised “masculine energy” and even “celebrating aggression” as positive for business. It’s a narrative that legitimises domination as strength.
And aggression does have apparent gifts:
The real costs But the price is immense.
A long-term study of more than 6,500 white-collar workers, tracked over 18 years, found that “job strain” (high demands combined with low control) and effort–reward imbalance were linked to a 49% higher risk of heart disease. When both factors were present, the risk of heart disease roughly doubled (Harvard Health, 2015).
History gives us a stark reminder. When Joseph Stalin suffered a massive stroke in 1953, his guards and ministers reportedly stood paralysed outside his room, too afraid to act without orders. He died alone, abandoned by the very people whose loyalty he had demanded through fear.
Aggressive leadership breeds the same paradox: the more fear it generates, the less truth it receives and the greater the harm, to both systems and bodies.
Where patterns begin: roots in survival and shameAggression in leadership rarely starts in the boardroom. These patterns are shaped much earlier: in childhood homes, at school, in environments where domination or submission were the only ways to survive.
This doesn’t excuse the harm. But it reminds us that aggressive leadership often stems from old patterns of survival and internalised shame. Recognising this helps us move from simplistic blame to understanding and, ultimately, to different choices.
How organisations colludeAggressive leaders don’t succeed in isolation. Organisations reward them, often unconsciously.
Everyday collusionAggression in leadership doesn’t survive only because some leaders are domineering. It survives because we all, at times, collude with it.
The Alternative: Leadership through regardThe opposite of aggression is not weakness, but leadership rooted in respect, presence, and high regard.
This form of leadership:
It is harder, not easier. It requires courage and vulnerability. But it is the only path that creates loyalty, creativity, and a legacy worth leaving.
Building emotional organisational capacityIf aggression thrives on collusion, then the antidote is capacity: the capacity to notice fear, shame, judgment, and to stay in contact anyway.
Organisations often build systems capacity (procedures, outputs, controls). What they lack is emotional capacity: the ability to hold tension without resorting to domination, the resilience to stay relational under pressure, the willingness to regard others even when they fall short.
The real work of leadership is not eliminating pressure but building the capacity, individually and collectively, to meet each other as human beings in the midst of it.
Shaping the system beyond fearAggression may deliver results, but it fractures the system around it: trust diminishes, voices go silent, and leaders find themselves cut off from truth, innovation, and connection.
Respect, presence, and high regard give organisations oxygen, creating an environment where people feel safe to contribute, innovate, and remain committed.
One path corrodes systems and bodies. The other sustains them.
What are you building, in yourself, and in your organisation, to resist the pull of fear and return to respect?
“There are things I can’t say to my boss, they’d be too aggressive.” “I’ve chosen to be submissive. This is painful, but when I speak up, I’m blamed and threatened.”These are not isolated complaints. They are the lived experiences of people working in organisations today, where aggression is not only present but often mistaken for leadership. By aggression I mean the use of power over others, domination, intimidation, humiliation, even physical outbursts.
And in the same coaching rooms, I have also heard the voices of leaders themselves: “I’m a people leader… until I’m not.” “I value people… until they don’t deliver.” One even told me: “I would rather work with robots than with people.”
Many leaders believe they are people-focused, but only until pressure rises. Others don’t value the relational side at all, reducing leadership to tasks, outputs, systems, and procedures. In both cases, the human system is ignored.
Why aggression looks like leadershipCulturally, we still equate toughness with effectiveness. Mark Zuckerberg recently praised “masculine energy” and even “celebrating aggression” as positive for business. It’s a narrative that legitimises domination as strength.
And aggression does have apparent gifts:
- Drive and ambition
- Risk-taking and bold decisions
- The momentum to “make things happen”
- Charisma, even a “right amount of narcissism”
The real costs But the price is immense.
- People go silent.
- Staff submit rather than contribute.
- Psychological safety evaporates.
- Creativity and innovation shrink.
- Burnout and disengagement spread.
A long-term study of more than 6,500 white-collar workers, tracked over 18 years, found that “job strain” (high demands combined with low control) and effort–reward imbalance were linked to a 49% higher risk of heart disease. When both factors were present, the risk of heart disease roughly doubled (Harvard Health, 2015).
History gives us a stark reminder. When Joseph Stalin suffered a massive stroke in 1953, his guards and ministers reportedly stood paralysed outside his room, too afraid to act without orders. He died alone, abandoned by the very people whose loyalty he had demanded through fear.
Aggressive leadership breeds the same paradox: the more fear it generates, the less truth it receives and the greater the harm, to both systems and bodies.
Where patterns begin: roots in survival and shameAggression in leadership rarely starts in the boardroom. These patterns are shaped much earlier: in childhood homes, at school, in environments where domination or submission were the only ways to survive.
- For some, aggression became a shield: dominate before being dominated.
- For others, silence and submission were safer than speaking up.
This doesn’t excuse the harm. But it reminds us that aggressive leadership often stems from old patterns of survival and internalised shame. Recognising this helps us move from simplistic blame to understanding and, ultimately, to different choices.
How organisations colludeAggressive leaders don’t succeed in isolation. Organisations reward them, often unconsciously.
- Prioritising results over relationships
- Celebrating “heroes” who deliver, no matter the collateral damage
- Mistaking loudness and dominance for leadership
- Rewarding “tough decisiveness” in crisis
- Promoting those who self-promote, while overlooking those who collaborate
Everyday collusionAggression in leadership doesn’t survive only because some leaders are domineering. It survives because we all, at times, collude with it.
- As a parent, I’ve noticed this with my son preparing for exams: when I pressure, judge, or reduce him to tasks and outputs, the relationship gets stuck.
- As a coach, when I lose high regard for a client and let judgment creep in, the flow freezes.
The Alternative: Leadership through regardThe opposite of aggression is not weakness, but leadership rooted in respect, presence, and high regard.
This form of leadership:
- Holds people in dignity, even when they fall short
- Creates conditions where truth can be spoken
- Builds trust and resilience, even under pressure
It is harder, not easier. It requires courage and vulnerability. But it is the only path that creates loyalty, creativity, and a legacy worth leaving.
Building emotional organisational capacityIf aggression thrives on collusion, then the antidote is capacity: the capacity to notice fear, shame, judgment, and to stay in contact anyway.
Organisations often build systems capacity (procedures, outputs, controls). What they lack is emotional capacity: the ability to hold tension without resorting to domination, the resilience to stay relational under pressure, the willingness to regard others even when they fall short.
The real work of leadership is not eliminating pressure but building the capacity, individually and collectively, to meet each other as human beings in the midst of it.
Shaping the system beyond fearAggression may deliver results, but it fractures the system around it: trust diminishes, voices go silent, and leaders find themselves cut off from truth, innovation, and connection.
Respect, presence, and high regard give organisations oxygen, creating an environment where people feel safe to contribute, innovate, and remain committed.
One path corrodes systems and bodies. The other sustains them.
What are you building, in yourself, and in your organisation, to resist the pull of fear and return to respect?