前言：在职场中，我们习惯了对员工的严格绩效管理，却对领导的失职视而不见。领导者的权力似乎成了免于问责的护盾，而员工只能默默承受，甚至选择离开。这篇文章大胆提出一个颠覆性的观点：如果员工可以被要求改进，为什么领导不行？通过真实案例、国际实践和结构化建议，作者呼吁建立一种双向问责机制，让领导也必须赢得团队的信任与支持。这不仅是对职场公平的重新定义，更是对组织文化的深度反思。-编者
[image: 1757459400152-screenshot-2025-09-09-180922.png]
作者：Dr. Mike Linville，教授 （Indiana Wesleyan University)
🧩 双重标准
想一想你最近遇到的表现不佳的员工。他们被安排了绩效改进计划（PIP）：有明确的时间表和具体目标。如果没有改善，就会离职，或者更常见的是被迫离开。
再想一想你遇到的有毒、傲慢甚至有害的领导。他们很可能仍在掌权。因为领导职位常被视为“终身制”。即使领导犯错（甚至更严重），也很少真正被问责。这种双重标准损害了团队的士气、信任和生产力。
反转绩效改进计划（Flip the PIP）
那么，假如员工（研究显示他们完成了组织中约 80% 的工作）也能为领导制定绩效改进计划呢？
这不是随意的反馈，而是正式的、限时的改进计划，包含明确的评估指标：沟通清晰度、同理心、执行力、包容性和尊重。
毕竟，当领导破坏了心理契约（例如破坏信任、违背组织价值观），员工几乎没有回应机制——除了辞职。而绩效改进计划可以改变这一点：留下来，正面解决问题，而不是默默疏远。
️ 领导也应承担后果
这听起来激进吗？其实并非幻想。
纽约邮报最近报道，花旗集团终于对一位高管展开内部调查。多位董事指控他长期公开羞辱下属、言语粗暴，甚至让一位高管当众落泪。一位员工在花旗工作近 40 年后因同事遭受恶劣待遇而辞职。
投诉不断积累，也许现在终于会采取行动。也许吧。
我们真的相信普通员工能长期做出这种行为而不被处理吗？当然不可能。
️ 权力差距
现实是：我们对员工严格问责，却很少对领导如此。
问题根源在于领导与员工之间的权力不对等。职位和头衔带来的权力让领导掌控绩效评估、晋升甚至员工的职业安全。这种不平衡导致问责机制单向进行。
员工不敢挑战权威，因为风险太高；而领导则被权力保护伞所庇护，免于真正的后果。
除非组织正视这种不平衡，问责将永远是选择性的。员工继续承受压力，而最有影响力的人却最不可能被追责。
可行的改革路径
但也有一些令人惊讶的例子：
巴西 Semco 公司：员工每六个月评估经理，得分低的领导会被替换。
沃顿商学院研究：中国某汽车制造商实行员工评估后，员工流失率下降 50%，生产力提升。
Adobe 与 Deloitte：引入“向上反馈”，影响管理者发展与晋升。
Valve 与 W.L. Gore：领导由项目团队授予，非永久职位。
在精英军事单位、外科团队和创意集体中，领导权是流动的：根据任务而非职位轮换。在这些环境中，“领导绩效改进”是持续的，不是惩罚，而是生存所需。
是时候问责了
想象一下你在周一会议上对老板说：“你有 90 天的改进期。沟通、愿景、支持……你需要兑现。”
如果这不被视为“冒犯”，而是“问责”，会怎样？
重点不是报复，而是改善领导与员工之间的工作关系，从而使组织受益。当大家都专注于共同目标时，权力游戏对参与度和成果的影响就会减少。
🧪 领导绩效改进计划：可能的样貌
明确标准：沟通清晰度、建立信任、愿景一致、支持团队成长。
定期由员工评估，决定是否保留领导职位。
“任期条款”：领导职位需定期获得团队重新认可。
勇气与结构
领导不应是终身任命，而应基于绩效。既然领导是情境性的，那么领导权也应如此——员工应有更多权力决定领导是否仍然有效。
员工不仅应被尊重，还应拥有要求尊重的机制。
Ira Chaleff 称之为“勇敢的追随者”。这不是叛逆，而是文化建设。勇气本身是原始能量，结构则将其转化为进步。
在远程团队、敏捷模式和项目领导日益普及的今天，权威本就具有情境性。如果领导可以被授予，也应可以被撤销。
如果员工从未真正评估领导，职场权力结构将永远倾斜。
结语：我们为何还没开始？
回到最初的问题：你是否正在为一个糟糕或有毒的领导工作？如果你的团队有机制让他们承担责任，会发生什么变化？
最大的问题不是这个想法是否激进，而是我们为什么还没有开始这样做。
你怎么看？欢迎留言或转发。
原文：
September 5, 2025
The Double Standard
Think about the last underperforming employee you knew. They got a performance improvement plan. A clear timeline. Specific goals. If they didn’t improve, they left or, more likely, were pushed out.
Now, think about the last leader who was toxic, dismissive, or outright harmful. Chances are, they’re still in charge. Because leadership is treated like tenure. Leaders make mistakes (or worse) but seldom face real accountability. That double standard costs teams morale, trust, and productivity.
Flip the PIP
So, here’s an idea: What if followers (who, according to research, do 80% of the work in organizations) could put leaders on a performance improvement plan (PIP)? I’m referring to a formal plan. Time bound. With benchmarks…like clarity, empathy, follow-through, inclusion, and respect. After all, when leaders break the implicit psychological contract (e.g., eroding trust, violating stated values), followers rarely have mechanisms to respond …other than quitting. A performance plan flips this: stay and address the issues rather than silently disengaging.
Consequences for Leaders
Does that sound a bit radical? Actually, this is not fantasy. Recently, the New York Post reported that Citigroup has (finally) initiated an internal investigation into one of its senior executives after multiple managing directors accused him of public humiliation and harsh treatment over a period of time. (Here’s the link:
https://nypost.com/2025/08/20/business/citi-wealth-chief-andy-sieg-made-male-executive-cry-in-front-of-colleagues/
That leader allegedly yelled, called subordinates’ work “pathetic,” and even reduced an executive to tears. One employee quit last year after nearly 40 years at Citigroup because of the horrible treatment of colleagues. Complaints have piled up and it seems that maybe, after so much damage has been done, just maybe action will be taken. Maybe. Do we actually believe that most employees (followers) would have gotten away with such behaviors, let alone for an extended period of time? Of course not.
The Power Gap
That’s today’s reality. We accept accountability for employees/followers but rarely apply the same to leaders. At the root of the problem is the power differential between leaders and followers. Titles and the positional power that comes with them create an inherent imbalance, giving leaders control over performance reviews, promotions, and even job security. That imbalance makes accountability one-sided. Followers hesitate to challenge authority because the risks feel too high, while leaders operate with a shield that often protects them from real consequences. Until organizations confront this imbalance, accountability will remain selective. Employees will continue to carry the weight of scrutiny, while those with the most influence remain the least likely to be called to account.
Possible Ways Forward
Yet, there are a few examples that might surprise you. In Brazil, Semco empowers employees to evaluate managers every six months. Historically, low-scoring leaders move on. (https://executiveexcellence.com/semco-partners/) A 2025 Wharton study on a Chinese automaker found that bottom-up manager evaluations led to a 50 percent reduction in turnover and higher productivity. (https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-workers-should-evaluate-their-managers/#:~:text=Key Takeaways,like manufacturing battling high attrition.) Even mainstream HR practices are beginning to shift. Companies like Adobe and Deloitte have introduced upward feedback for managers, feedback that impacts development and promotion. And then there are firms like Valve and W. L. Gore, where leadership is fluid, earned, and granted by peers in project-based settings.
Elite military units, surgical teams, and creative collectives often have leader–follower fluidity: leadership rotates based on task, not rank. In these environments, “leader performance improvement” is continuous. It’s not punitive, it’s survival.
Time for Accountability
Picture walking into your Monday meeting and saying to your boss: “You’re on a 90-day improvement plan. Communication, vision, support…you need to deliver.” Imagine if that wasn’t seen as insubordination. Imagine it was accountability. The point isn’t to be vengeful or retaliatory for past sins. The objective would be to improve the working relationships between leaders and followers that, ultimately, benefits the organization. Once everyone is focused on collectively pursuing common purpose, the power plays will have less of an effect on engagement and outcomes.
Performance Improvement for Leaders: What It Could Look Like
So, what would a leader PIP look like? Well, for starters, how about:
Clear criteria: Communication clarity, trust-building, vision alignment, support for team growth.
Regular peer/follower evaluations that directly inform leadership retention or reassignment.
A “sunset clause” on leadership positions unless re-endorsed by followers every X months.
Courage With Structure
Leadership should not be a lifetime appointment. It should be conditional on performance. If leadership is situational, then so is the right to lead…and followers should have more agency to decide if leadership is still effective. Followers deserve not just respect but a mechanism to demand it. Ira Chaleff called it courageous followership. It’s not about rebellion; it’s about culture. Courage on its own is raw energy; structure turns it into progress.
We are in a time where authority is situational. Remote teams, agile models, and project leadership already blur lines. If leadership can be earned, it can (or should) also be revoked. If followers never evaluate leaders with teeth, the workplace power balance will remain tilted.
The Bottom Line
So, back to the original question: do you work for a bad or toxic leader? What would change if your team had a real mechanism to hold them accountable? The biggest problem is not whether this is radical. The problem is why we have not done it already.
What do you think?? Feel free to comment and/or repost.
编译： 丹奇
