Destructive Leadership and Stockholm Syndrome

Why do competent, reflective employees stay in relationships and systems that are clearly harming them—and why do they often defend the leader responsible?

Many people ask this question when faced with destructive leadership. The answer rarely lies in a lack of courage or insight. Research in occupational psychology points instead to powerful psychological mechanisms such as trauma bonding and what is often referred to as organizational (corporate) Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome describes a psychological pattern where a person subjected to threats, power imbalances, or abuse develops positive feelings for and loyalty toward their abuser. It emerges as a survival strategy, not a conscious choice. While these terms are not clinical diagnoses in a workplace context, they describe patterns that are both recognizable and deeply serious.

When loyalty becomes a psychological prison

Trauma bonding to a leader is characterized by employees developing a strong emotional attachment to the person harming them. They remain in a damaging pattern while simultaneously defending the leader to others and rationalizing abusive behavior. In practice, this is about survival. When your job, income, professional identity, and social belonging are controlled by one person or one system, many will unconsciously adapt to reduce pain and uncertainty. What may look like irrational loyalty from the outside is often a highly rational coping strategy in an unsafe environment.

Typical psychological characteristics of employees

Employees trapped in trauma bonding often exhibit a set of clear internal reactions:

They downplay or deny unfair treatment, explaining the leader's outbursts by saying the leader "is under a lot of pressure" or "means well."
They feel intense guilt or shame at the mere thought of changing jobs, reporting the behavior, or involving HR or union representatives—as if they are personally betraying the leader.
They experience confusion and self-blame: "I must be too sensitive", especially after periods of gaslighting, criticism, and unpredictability mixed with sporadic praise.

These are classic consequences of long-term stress combined with a power imbalance.

Behaviors that point to trauma bonding

On the outside, the patterns often become even clearer:

Employees defend the leader to colleagues, even when there are documented instances of abuse, and instead attack those who speak up.
They go above and beyond, accept unreasonable demands or mistreatment, and refer to it as "loyalty," "team spirit," or "a temporary phase," even when the strain is chronic.
They stay despite sleep problems, stress-related ailments, and clear signs that both their health and personal lives are suffering – because they feel emotionally bonded.

It is important to emphasize here: this is not an expression of weakness, but of bonding.

The leader-employee relationship dynamic

The relationship between a destructive leader and an employee is often characterized by cycles:

Periods of criticism, coldness, humiliation, or threats are followed by sudden "warm" moments: praise, intimacy, or special treatment.
The leader uses ideals of loyalty, "family," self-sacrifice, and high performance – combined with guilt and shame – to keep people trapped.
The employee gradually becomes emotionally dependent on the leader's validation and adjusts their own behavior to avoid the leader's wrath and "get back" the good times.

This oscillation between fear and reward is one of the strongest mechanisms behind trauma bonding.

Organizational Stockholm syndrome: When the culture protects itself

When such relationships are allowed to develop over time, they can become collective. Research describes this as organizational Stockholm syndrome – loyalty to dysfunction.

Typical signs include:

An inner circle around the leader that normalizes toxic behavior and views critical colleagues as disloyal or weak.
A "us versus them" logic, where the group perceives itself as particularly hardworking and resilient – and looks down on those who set boundaries or quit.
Mistreatment, overwork, and public criticism are framed as necessary costs of being in a "high-performance environment."

In Norway, investigations into organizations like NAV, the Armed Forces, and the media industry have shown how such cultures can persist for years, precisely because criticism is internalized and the system is defended.

When should alarm bells ring for leaders and HR?

There is particular cause for concern when:

Employees defend clearly harmful leadership behavior more strongly than the leader themselves.
Criticism is consistently turned inward against the individual or against "disloyal" colleagues.
Employees show clear signs of health issues but find it unthinkable to leave the workplace or set boundaries.

At that point, it is no longer just about fear, but about emotional attachment.

What can leaders do to break these patterns?

The measures must be structural, not individual:

Build psychological safety in practice
Disagreement and criticism must be met with curiosity, not sanctions.
Set clear boundaries for the use of power
Results can never justify abusive leadership behavior.
Provide genuine support to those who want to leave
Changing roles or jobs must not be seen as a betrayal.
Develop emotionally mature leaders
Leadership development must include self-awareness, ethical use of power, and accountability—not just performance demands.

Reflection questions for leaders

Are we defending practices just because "that's how we do things here"?
Who pays the price for the loyalty in our culture?
How do we know that employees stay because they want to – not because they feel trapped?
What happens to those who set boundaries in our organization?