Leadership by fear has not disappeared. In many organisations, it has simply become more polished, less visible and culturally easier to excuse.

It rarely presents itself through obvious aggression anymore. More often, it appears through unpredictability, intimidation, excessive pressure, unrealistic expectations or leaders who consistently create career anxiety rather than clarity around them.

The effect this has on the organisation, however, remains largely unchanged. Trust deteriorates and engagement declines. Communication becomes guarded and decision making becomes influenced by people prioritising self-protection over honesty, learning or accountability. Inevitably, the most talented people leave because of the leadership environment surrounding them.

Fear has real psychological and physiological effects. Stress responses activate, attention spans narrow and decision making becomes more reactive and emotionally driven. Over time, this inhibits judgement, learning, creativity and communication far more than many organisations realise.

This all culminates in diminished organisational effectiveness. People stop challenging poor decisions. Bad news is hidden until the point there is no choice but to share it. Meetings become performative rather than constructive or decisive. Focus shifts away from customers, progress and improvement toward managing optics, avoiding criticism or navigating ego driven internal politics.

Importantly, leadership by fear does not always emerge purely from personality alone. While some leaders are naturally overbearing, highly self-orientated or excessively controlling, organisations themselves can passively enable these behaviours to survive and grow. Cultures and systems that overvalue short term delivery at any cost, tolerate poor behaviour from high performers or confuse aggression with strength often create the conditions where fear based leadership becomes normalised.

In some environments, harmful behaviours are not merely tolerated, they are indirectly rewarded. This is particularly common in organisations operating under sustained pressure,  financial uncertainty, operational crises or unrealistic commercial expectations as urgency gradually overrides judgement. Leaders who create fear may initially appear decisive, demanding or results focused, particularly when short term performance temporarily improves. But I’ve never seen this approach sustain performance over time.

Fear does provide a short term win, but organisations pay the price elsewhere because it will never create engagement, commitment or loyalty. People can be pressured into delivering for a finite period of time, particularly when livelihoods, career progression or reputation are on the line. But what fear ultimately leads to is detachment. It creates  apathy, disengagement, presenteeism, reduced productivity, absenteeism and higher attrition.

The irony is that leaders who rely heavily on fear often present themselves as strong. In reality, however, these behaviours are frequently rooted in insecurity rather than confidence. Control, intimidation and excessive pressure are often compensatory behaviours designed to mask uncertainty, protect status or maintain the optic of authority. Truly secure leaders seldom need to dominate environments to retain credibility.

The strongest leaders I have worked with created clarity, transparency and trust around them, motivating people to keep expectations high, accountability to remain clear and honest conversations to take place when necessary. But because people understood where they stood and communication remained concise, pressure did not become personal or psychologically destabilising.

Ultimately, leadership by fear still exists because many organisations continue to mistake intimidation for strength and short-term compliance for long-term strategy. The organisations that sustain performance over time usually understand the difference.