Professions with the “worst bosses”: what the evidence really shows (and how to protect your mental health)
By TherapyNearMe.com.au — evidence‑based mental health
Why this topic matters
Most of us have a story about a difficult manager. But which occupations actually carry higher risk of harmful leadership—and what does “worst” mean in scientific terms? Research typically examines constructs such as abusive supervision (sustained hostile verbal and non‑verbal behaviour), workplace bullying (persistent mistreatment with a power imbalance), incivility (low‑intensity disrespect), and broader destructive leadership patterns (Tepper, 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper, 2011; Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Schilpzand, De Pater and Erez, 2016). These behaviours consistently predict anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, and burnout (Kivimäki et al., 2003; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012).
Two cautions upfront: there is no single league table of “worst bosses by profession,” and study designs vary (samples, measures, timeframes). What follows summarises patterns and risk factors that cluster in certain sectors, so you can make informed choices and protect yourself at work.
What counts as a “bad boss” in the literature
- Abusive supervision: repeated hostile behaviours (ridicule, public shaming, withholding information) that stop short of physical contact (Tepper, 2000).
- Workplace bullying: repeated exposure ≥6 months to negative acts with power imbalance; often measured by the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Einarsen et al., 2011).
- Incivility: frequent, low‑intensity disrespect that violates norms for mutual respect (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
- Destructive leadership: systematic supervisor behaviours that undermine subordinates’ well‑being or performance (Schyns and Schilling, 2013).
What the evidence says overall
Meta‑analyses show that destructive leadership and bullying are non‑trivial and harmful across many industries. Pooled estimates suggest single‑point bullying prevalence frequently in the 10–15% range (depending on definitions), with higher lifetime exposure (Nielsen, Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2010; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012). Abusive supervision links robustly to lower job satisfaction and higher psychological strain (Mackey, Frieder, Brees and Martinko, 2017). Health impacts include increased sickness absence and depression (Kivimäki et al., 2003; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012).
Sectors where risk appears higher (and why)
Below we describe risk‑raising conditions and examples of occupational groups where those conditions commonly occur. Leadership quality varies widely within each sector; these are population‑level patterns, not verdicts on every workplace.
1) Healthcare (nursing, medicine, ambulance)
- Why risk is higher: 24/7 operations, severe time pressure, steep hierarchies, chronic staffing shortages, frequent exposure to patient and family distress.
- Evidence: Systematic reviews report high rates of aggression and bullying in healthcare settings; nurses in particular report frequent exposure to incivility and bullying from both supervisors and colleagues (Liu et al., 2019; Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson and Wilkes, 2010). Bullying is associated with depression, anxiety and increased sick leave (Kivimäki et al., 2003; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012).
- Mental‑health lens: Chronic exposure to hostile supervision and lateral violence erodes psychological safety and is linked with burnout and sleep disruption.
2) Front‑line service work (hospitality, retail, call centres)
- Why risk is higher: Customers as a second “boss,” emotional‑labour demands, surveillance of metrics (handle time, upsell), low decision latitude.
- Evidence: Customer‑related social stressors predict burnout; incivility and disrespect from supervisors and customers often co‑occur (Dormann and Zapf, 2004; Schilpzand et al., 2016).
- Mental‑health lens: Persistent low‑intensity disrespect and performance pressure link to anxiety and depressive symptoms, especially with irregular hours.
3) Education and academia
- Why risk is higher: Strong power asymmetries (tenure, grant control), scarce permanent roles, public performance evaluation and prestige competition.
- Evidence: Studies in higher education document bullying and mobbing dynamics among faculty and administrators (Keashly and Neuman, 2010). Incivility undermines engagement and health (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
- Mental‑health lens: Chronic insecurity plus status competition can normalise incivility; early‑career academics and casual staff are especially exposed.
4) Policing, corrections and emergency services
- Why risk is higher: Militarised hierarchies, critical‑incident exposure, strong in‑group norms, shift work and sleep loss.
- Evidence: While leadership measures vary, research links authoritarian climates and perceived injustice to strain and cynicism; destructive leadership effects tend to amplify under high job demands and low control (Karasek, 1979; Schyns and Schilling, 2013).
- Mental‑health lens: Low voice and high stakes make it harder to repair ruptures with supervisors; sleep disruption increases conflict sensitivity.
5) Finance and high‑stakes sales
- Why risk is higher: Tournament‑style incentives and stretch targets can crowd out ethics and civility; supervisors transmit pressure downstream.
- Evidence: Goal systems under intense pressure can spur unethical conduct and aggressive oversight (Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky and Bazerman, 2009). Sector‑specific work suggests cultural cues can normalise dishonesty (Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal, 2014).
- Mental‑health lens: High evaluation pressure, long hours and low recovery increase anxiety and sleep problems—fertile soil for abrasive leadership.
6) Construction and resource industries
- Why risk is higher: Male‑dominated crews, transient projects, safety‑critical deadlines, long swings away from home.
- Evidence: High job demands combined with variable supervisory support predict strain; weak civility norms can normalise harsh supervision (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schyns and Schilling, 2013).
- Mental‑health lens: Extended rosters and fatigue magnify conflict; psychological safety is crucial for hazard reporting.
7) Tech and start‑ups
- Why risk is higher: Rapid growth, role ambiguity, inexperienced managers, long hours, and “always on” cultures.
- Evidence: Where job resources (support, role clarity) lag behind demands, risk of burnout and abrasive leadership rises (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
- Mental‑health lens: Hyper‑competition and blurred boundaries can make incivility feel “normal.”
Bottom line: Sectors with high demands, low control, unstable security, and strong power asymmetries are more likely to incubate “bad boss” behaviours (Karasek, 1979; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
How “bad bosses” affect mental health
- Depression and anxiety: Exposure to bullying and abusive supervision predicts higher depressive symptoms and anxiety (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012; Mackey et al., 2017).
- Sleep and burnout: Incivility spirals and after‑hours rumination disturb sleep and accelerate burnout (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
- Sickness absence: Bullying predicts increased medically certified absence (Kivimäki et al., 2003).
- Spillover: Strain spills into home life, increasing conflict and reducing recovery opportunities.
What you can do (worker playbook)
- Name the pattern. Keep a concrete log (date, behaviour, impact). Research shows that specificity beats general complaints when seeking help (Einarsen et al., 2011).
- Check allies and process. Consult a trusted colleague; escalate using policy language (bullying/harassment, psychosocial hazards).
- Protect sleep and boundaries. Even small gains in recovery time reduce reactivity and improve problem‑solving.
- Use low‑drama scripts. Example: “I want to do good work. When feedback is given in public, I shut down. Can we schedule 10 minutes 1‑to‑1 after stand‑up?”
- If harm persists, move. Meta‑analyses show leadership effects differ between managers (therapist‑style “leader effects”)—a change of leader often changes outcomes (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Document and seek a transfer or new role when feasible.
What organisations can do (leader playbook)
- Measure and respond. Use validated brief surveys on civility and abusive supervision; report results transparently.
- Fix job design. Increase role clarity and decision latitude; align targets with values to reduce pressure‑driven misconduct (Karasek, 1979; Ordóñez et al., 2009).
- Train and coach leaders. Civility programs (e.g., CREW) show unit‑level improvements in respect norms and burnout (Leiter, Laschinger, Day and Oore, 2011).
- Protect reporters. Psychological safety requires anti‑retaliation norms and follow‑through.
- Model recovery. Leaders who protect boundaries (no midnight emails; real leave) reduce team strain and conflict.
Limitations and nuance
- Studies differ in definitions and time windows; some rely on self‑report.
- Cross‑sectional designs limit causal inference, though longitudinal work supports harm pathways.
- Within‑sector variation is large; pockets of excellent leadership exist in every industry.
Key takeaways
- There is no single “worst profession,” but healthcare, front‑line service work, academia, emergency services, finance/sales, construction, and tech show risk‑raising conditions for harmful leadership.
- The job demands–resources balance and power asymmetries explain much of the variance.
- Protecting mental health requires naming patterns, using processes, improving job design, and, when needed, changing teams.
References
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) ‘The Job Demands–Resources model: state of the art’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309–328.
Cohn, A., Fehr, E. and Maréchal, M.A. (2014) ‘Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry’, Nature, 516(7529), pp. 86–89.
Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (2004) ‘Customer‑related social stressors and burnout’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), pp. 61–82.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2011) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice. 2nd edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Keashly, L. and Neuman, J.H. (2010) ‘Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education’, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), pp. 48–70.
Karasek, R.A. (1979) ‘Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 285–308.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M. and Vahtera, J. (2003) ‘Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(10), pp. 777–783.
Leiter, M.P., Laschinger, H.K.S., Day, A. and Oore, D.G. (2011) ‘The impact of civility interventions on employee social behaviour, distress and attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), pp. 1258–1274.
Liu, J., Gan, Y., Jiang, H., Li, L., Dwyer, R., Lu, K., Yan, S., Sampson, O., Xu, H., Wang, C. and Lu, Z. (2019) ‘Prevalence of workplace violence against healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta‑analysis’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 76(12), pp. 927–937.
Mackey, J.D., Frieder, R.E., Brees, J.R. and Martinko, M.J. (2017) ‘Abusive supervision: a meta‑analysis and empirical review’, Journal of Management, 43(6), pp. 1940–1965.
Nielsen, M.B., Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010) ‘The prevalence of workplace bullying: a meta‑analysis’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), pp. 45–65.
Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S.V. (2012) ‘Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta‑analytic review’, Work & Stress, 26(4), pp. 309–332.
Ordóñez, L.D., Schweitzer, M.E., Galinsky, A.D. and Bazerman, M.H. (2009) ‘Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of over‑prescribing goal setting’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), pp. 6–16.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I.E. and Erez, A. (2016) ‘Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, pp. S57–S88.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013) ‘How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta‑analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes’, The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), pp. 138–158.
Tepper, B.J. (2000) ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), pp. 178–190.
How to cite this article
Therapy Near Me (2025) ‘Professions with the “worst bosses”: what the evidence really shows (and how to protect your mental health)’. Available at: https://TherapyNearMe.com.au (Accessed 9 December 2025).
General information only and not a substitute for personalised advice. If you are experiencing bullying or harassment, consult your HR policy and local employment regulator; if you feel unsafe, call 000.
