When a Manager’s Leadership Style, Personal Conduct, and Emotional Intelligence Become Legal Liabilities

“A manager is demanding and occasionally uses profanity. Isn’t that merely a matter of personal conduct? How did it become a legal issue?”

Since Taiwan’s new workplace bullying provisions took effect, many corporate managers have begun reviewing whether their words and actions might cross a legal boundary.

At the same time, some managers have come to believe that managing employees has become so risky that the safest approach is simply to avoid managing them altogether.

Neither extreme is appropriate, nor does either reflect the purpose of the legislation.

The real problem today is not that managers no longer know how to manage. It is that the law has begun to regulate how managers exercise their authority.

Since the workplace bullying chapter of Taiwan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act formally took effect in July 2026, the most significant change for Taiwanese companies, in my view, has not merely been the introduction of a new complaint system.

The greater change is that a manager’s leadership and management style has officially become subject to legal scrutiny.

In the past, companies selected managers primarily on the basis of business results, execution ability, and professional expertise.

Today, companies must also consider a manager’s emotional intelligence, emotional regulation, communication style, and personal conduct.

A single statement, email, or LINE message from a manager may become important evidence used by an investigation committee, court, or competent authority to determine whether workplace bullying has occurred.

Many business owners ask me:

“Are managers no longer allowed to impose strict standards?”

“Does managing employees now automatically create legal risk?”

“Are companies no longer permitted to demand proper performance?”

The answer to all three questions is no.

The law has never prohibited managers from managing employees, nor has it prohibited companies from requiring satisfactory performance.

What has changed is that the law now examines the method of management, not merely its purpose.

Even where a manager subjectively believes that they are acting in the company’s interests, legal liability may still arise if the management method exceeds what is necessary and reasonable for legitimate business purposes.

In my view, the new law has introduced three management revolutions that every chairperson, chief executive officer, and manager should take seriously.

For labor-law compliance training, accredited continuing education for board members, appointments as external committee members in workplace bullying and sexual harassment investigations, and representation in litigation or mediation proceedings, please contact YesinLaw at +886-2-2515-6822 or visit https://www.yesinlaw.com.

1. Management Style Has Become a Legal Issue

“I may be sharp-tongued, but I mean well.”

“I simply communicate in a very direct manner.”

“I had no malicious intent.”

None of these explanations is sufficient, by itself, to exempt a manager or employer from legal responsibility.

What courts and competent authorities will actually examine is whether the management style continuously infringed the employee’s dignity, created a risk to the employee’s psychological health, and complied with the principle of proportionality.

A manager’s subjective intention is not the sole consideration. The nature, frequency, severity, and effects of the conduct are equally important.

2. Managerial Emotional Intelligence Has Become a Formal Labor-Law Compliance Issue

From the moment a manager enters the workplace each day, that manager exercises authority on behalf of the chairperson, chief executive officer, and company.

A manager’s emotional regulation, conflict-management skills, communication ability, and respect for human dignity may directly affect whether the company faces administrative penalties, reputational damage, corporate-governance concerns, ESG consequences, RBA 8.0 audit findings, or even civil and criminal liability.

Emotional intelligence is no longer merely a leadership competency.

It has become part of an enterprise’s governance and compliance capability.

3. Corporate Governance Has Entered the Era of Managing the Management Process

In the past, companies often adopted a results-oriented approach and focused primarily on whether a manager achieved the required business targets.

In the future, companies must also review how those results were achieved.

If an enterprise continuously tolerates management by shouting, public humiliation, excessive pressure, or attacks on employees’ character, strong short-term performance may ultimately come at a substantial cost.

That cost may include administrative penalties, litigation damages, employee turnover, reputational harm, and failure in customer or supply-chain audits.

Corporate governance can no longer focus only on outcomes. It must also control the process by which managerial authority is exercised.

Attorney Chen Yeh-Hsin’s Reminder

The greatest source of corporate competitiveness in the future will not be artificial intelligence, business performance, or innovation alone.

It will also depend on whether every manager knows how to lead a team through methods that are lawful, respectful, and effective.

When a manager’s emotional intelligence begins to affect the company’s legal liability, should enterprises also reconsider how they define a truly outstanding manager?