When Influence Becomes Intimidation

Real power protects people, not egos.

Earlier this year, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) published a piece urging employers not to dismiss negative employee reviews. The article highlighted how online feedback, whether accurate or not, shapes public perception of a company’s culture and credibility. It cautioned leaders against treating such reviews as personal attacks, reminding them that every comment, even an uncomfortable one, is data.

The article contrasted two organisations. Company X ignored criticism, insisting that reviews were written by “disgruntled employees.” Over time, silence became costly as candidates declined interviews, staff morale dropped, and even clients grew uneasy. Company Y, by contrast, publicly acknowledged feedback, thanked reviewers, and explained the improvements being made. This transparency built trust, not only with employees but also with customers and investors.

As NTU’s Associate Professor Trevor Yu opined, silence is read as outdated. A thoughtful response signals warmth, sincerity and accountability which are qualities today’s talent values as much as pay and title. Ignoring or erasing criticism sends the opposite message: that leadership is more interested in image than improvement.

In other words, a company’s credibility is not measured by how spotless its reviews are, but by how maturely it responds to imperfection.

The Reflex to Retaliate

For most people, being called out triggers a reflexive defence which is to say the other person is lying. It feels safer to question someone’s honesty than to question our own actions. In corporate life, this reflex is amplified by ego, hierarchy, and fear of reputational loss.

But when that instinct takes hold in positions of authority, the damage multiplies. What could have been a moment for self-awareness becomes an exercise in control. The focus shifts from understanding the feedback to silencing its source.

In leadership, that’s the turning point as this is the moment integrity gives way to insecurity.

When Influence Becomes Intimidation

There is a quiet irony when a leader calls out “dishonesty” without offering a shred of evidence. In the absence of proof, what remains is not integrity but insecurity with the need to control the narrative rather than clarify it.

When influence is used to quietly discredit someone, it doesn’t just harm a person’s reputation. It contaminates the culture that allows it. In professional circles where senior executives often share overlapping networks, even a single insinuation can pre-empt fairness. A whisper of “I heard…” can shape perception long before facts are verified. When that whisper comes from a C-suite, its echo carries weight far beyond its truth.

The danger lies not in the words themselves, but in the influence behind them. At senior levels, reputation often travels faster than evidence. A single message, even a hint of doubt, can close doors and cast shadows that take years to clear.

This is not simply a moral lapse; it is a misuse of power. Ethical leaders understand that the strength of a network comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. Influence should open doors for dialogue, not close them through intimidation.

The Ethical and Regulatory Lens

In Singapore, the principles of fair employment are clear. The guidelines from the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) call for respect, merit-based decisions and treating employees with dignity. The Singapore Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reinforces this through its fair-employment frameworks, which emphasise that employers should avoid practices that unfairly disadvantage a person’s employment prospects whether by discrimination, exclusion or other improper interference.

The underlying intent is similar to that behind whistleblower protections: to prevent retaliation in any form against those who raise concerns or speak up. The MOM’s workplace-harassment advisories state that no employee should be “victimised or disadvantaged” for reporting issues.

The same principle applies to how employers handle external feedback. If a company or its leader is criticised on Glassdoor or social media, the fair response is transparency. Address it openly on the same platform or, if appropriate, to reach out directly to the author to clarify the feedback. What crosses the line is when a leader privately contacts the author’s new employer or professional network to discredit them. That is not accountability; it is retaliation.

While Singapore’s laws do not yet explicitly cover this form of behaviour, the spirit of fairness is unambiguous. TAFEP’s guidelines on the Fair Consideration Framework, and MOM’s Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment all rest on the same foundation: that professional conduct must be guided by dignity, transparency and merit, not vindictiveness.

When a past employer or senior figure leverages personal connections to disadvantage someone without substantiated cause, that conduct falls outside both fairness and decency. It breaches not just professional ethics, but the trust that employment systems are built on. The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) further extends accountability to communications aimed at causing distress or reputational harm, reinforcing that harassment, even under the guise of professional feedback, remains subject to scrutiny.

We rarely think of these as HR issues, yet they are. Harassment, when dressed in professional clothing, is still harassment.

The Cultural Cost

When retaliation becomes normalised, honesty becomes unsafe. People learn to stay silent, and silence soon masquerades as harmony. Over time, the cost isn’t reputational. It’s cultural. The space for truth narrows, and what remains is compliance without conviction.

A Quick Self-Check for Leaders

When facing criticism or uncomfortable feedback, ask yourself:

1. Have I verified the facts?

   Before reacting, pause. Is the feedback baseless, or does it contain truths I need to address?

   
   

2. Am I responding transparently or defensively?

   A public, fact-based clarification builds credibility; silence or denial erodes it.

   
   

3. Have I respected boundaries?

   Address the issue directly on the relevant platform or with the person involved and not through their new employer or professional network.

   
   

4. Am I upholding dignity on both sides?

   Even when correcting misinformation, avoid personal attacks or insinuations.

   
   

5. Have I turned feedback into insight?

   Ask what this reveals about culture, leadership, or communication gaps — and take visible steps to improve them.

   
   

6. Would my response stand up to daylight?

   If every part of my reaction were made public, would it still reflect fairness and integrity?

Leaders who pass this simple test strengthen trust rather than fear. They prove that reputation built on transparency endures longer than one protected by control.

If You’re the Employee Wondering What Might Happen Next

When you’ve spoken up, or are thinking about it, uncertainty can be unsettling. These questions can help you stay grounded and strategic:

1. Have I documented what happened clearly and factually?

   Keep records of what you said, when you said it, and to whom. Facts protect you better than emotion or hearsay.

   
   

2. Is my feedback framed around issues, not personalities?

   Focus on what happened or what needs improvement, not on who you think is at fault. It signals professionalism, not grievance.

   
   

3. Do I have a neutral confidant?

   Seek quiet guidance from a mentor, HR contact, or someone outside the reporting line to gain perspective.

   
   

4. Have I considered official channels?

   If you fear retaliation, TAFEP hotlines can advise confidentially. Sometimes a short consultation helps clarify what’s acceptable behaviour from an employer. Reach out:

   • File a report with TAFEP

   • Call TAFEP at 6838 0969

   
   

5. Am I preserving my professional tone online?

   Express your truth factually and calmly. Avoid naming individuals or making claims you can’t substantiate so focus on your experience, not accusation. Reputable platforms like Glassdoor moderates for inappropriate content, but your professionalism is still your best safeguard.

   
   

6. Do I still believe in the value of my voice?

   Remember: the act of speaking up, even when difficult, is part of what moves workplace culture forward. Silence may feel safer in the short term, but it rarely protects the self-respect that sustains long-term growth.

These questions don’t remove risk but they restore clarity which is powerful.

The Integrity Test

Healthy leadership isn’t about having the loudest voice in the room or the widest network in the industry. It’s about creating an environment where truth can exist without fear.

When employees, past or present, feel safe enough to speak honestly, even critically, that’s not a reputational risk; it’s a sign of trust earned. The real test of leadership is how we respond when someone says something we don’t want to hear. Do we listen, reflect and improve? Or do we mobilise our influence to silence them?

True integrity doesn’t require whisper campaigns or reputational retaliation. It stands up to scrutiny with evidence and transparency and trusts that truth, not influence, should carry the day.

In the long run, the organisations that will thrive are not those that curate flawless reputations, but those that model fair play even when the spotlight shifts uncomfortably close. Reputation built on fear is fragile. But reputation built on fairness endures.