New research from Portland State University shows that abusive supervision by toxic bosses can lead to organisational dehumanisation, driving severe employee burnout and weakening workplace collaboration.
The study was co-led by Liu Qin Yang, Professor of psychology at Portland State University. It finds that the effects of abusive leadership extend far beyond temporary discomfort, fundamentally shaping how employees view themselves at work.
Published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology in February 2026. The paper is titled “Dehumanized yet agentic? When and how organizational dehumanization mediates the effects of abusive supervision on burnout and interpersonal helping behavior.” The research draws on the dehumanisation model and human agency theory.
The research team conducted two major studies to examine how toxic leadership affects employees: a dyad study involving supervisor and employee pairs in China with 203 dyads, and a four-wave longitudinal study in North America with 314 participants.
These studies allowed researchers to track how behaviours, such as ridicule or invasions of privacy, can cause employees to feel like tools or “cogs in a machine.”
“Abusive supervision compromises an employee’s sense of agency,” Yang said. “Our findings show that this sense of dehumanization creates two distinct pathways of destruction within a company’s culture.”
The study identifies organisational dehumanisation as the central mechanism linking abusive supervision to negative outcomes. When employees internalise the sense that they are treated as instruments rather than people, two patterns emerge.
Organisational dehumanisation can lead to inauthenticity, a feeling that employees must suppress their true selves at work. Sustained self-suppression contributes to emotional exhaustion and severe burnout.
Dehumanisation can also create a sense of powerlessness, leaving employees feeling they have little influence over their work environment. As a result, they become less likely to engage in interpersonal helping behaviour, such as voluntary support and teamwork.
The researchers also identified a protective factor. Employees with strong chronic self-efficacy, meaning a sustained belief in their ability to overcome challenges, were less vulnerable to these dehumanising effects.
Across both studies, organisational dehumanisation mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and both burnout and interpersonal helping. Serial mediation was also confirmed. Organisational dehumanisation and inauthenticity together explained burnout, while organisational dehumanisation and powerlessness explained reduced helping behaviour. Chronic self-efficacy moderated these effects, reducing their impact.
The findings suggest that policies focused only on fairness may not fully protect employees from the harm caused by abusive leadership. The researchers argue that organisations should adopt management practices that prioritise employee agency.
“To mitigate these risks, organizations should adopt practices aimed at preventing leader abuse through development programs that emphasize respectful communication,” Yang noted. “By fostering employee self-efficacy and implementing human-centric management, companies can protect their most valuable asset — the humanity of their workforce.”
Abusive supervision remains a widespread workplace issue, with other research showing that many employees experience its effects. By identifying organisational dehumanisation as a central process, the study offers new insight into how toxic leadership harms both employee well-being and organisational performance.