Mechanism Against Toxic Management | Reducing Costs Related to Toxic Management (Sick Leaves, Employees' Lack of Motivation and Productivity)

Author: LÉONARD SARGSYAN |

Updated on: 06 October 2026 |

Number of views: 272

Should management become a regulated profession in Europe?

Hello everyone,

I would like to explore the possibility of launching a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to establish a European Managerial Aptitude Certification (EMAC). which is comprised of two versions: EMAC and EMAC C-Suite. Certificates will only be delivered to candidates who will pass all the sections of their exams, slightly similar to language tests like TOEFL or IEALTS: one gets them if they speak English. The principle for European Managerial Aptitude Certification (EMAC) is the same : if one wants to become a manager or C-Suite manager then they have to pass the corresponding test: EMAC for all managers and/or EMAC C-Suite for highest-level executive positions in a company (CEO, CFO, COO,CIO etc.). EMAC examinations will be comprised of written and oral parts just like language tests and will be assessed by commissions composed of at least 3 assessors. And one will be certified by EMAC testing commission only if he/she/them has the necessary aptitudes et meets the requirements: gaining at least 2/3 of votes of the assessing commission.

The basic idea and logic behind this initiative is simple:

If someone is given professional responsibility and authority over other people's working lives, shouldn't there be minimum European standards for the knowledge and skills required to exercise that responsibility?

At the moment, people can become managers in very different ways. Some receive extensive training in leadership and people management, while others can become responsible for employees with little or no formal preparation in areas such as communication, conflict management, people management, workplace psychology, psychosocial risks, harassment prevention, or supporting employees experiencing mental-health difficulties. In all cases, there are a lot of people suffering from toxic and deleterious management. They sometimes go on sick leave. It does cost expensive for everyone. I believe this deserves a serious European discussion.

The vision is to establish the role of manager as a regulated profession, similar to that of a plumber, pharmacist, broker, lawyer or architect. Having a degree in law or in finances is generally not enough to become a lawyer or a broker in different EU countries, because those are regulated professions that require additional testing or certification. We want the same logic for managers, because a lot of managers who have degrees in management from different universities are not only incapable of being good people managers nor good leaders, but also they often cause burnouts, brown outs, bore outs and even harassment. Having a degree from a university does not make one capable of managing people. There are studies confirming the link between deleterious management and high-levels of sick leaves.

We need to improve all these issues in order to reduce sick-leaves and bring more motivation and productivity to employees. That's why we need to set better standards for identifying and creating comprehensive framework of principles for developing and guiding managerial talents.

This change will help managers to acquire basic human skills before starting to manage teams and will allow employees to experience less burnout, reduce harassment, and increase motivation and productivity. Essentially, our initiative could lead to savings for social security by decreasing sick leave across the EU. Poor management can be quite costly, and we must take steps to change this.

Why management and mental health?

Mental health is influenced by many factors, including personal circumstances, workload, job security, working hours, working conditions and many other factors.

However, major public-health organizations recognize that the way work is organized and managed can affect workers' mental health.

In spite of the fact that many companies propose programs and incentives aspiring to improve employees’ wellbeing, reducing psychosocial risk factors, raising awareness about harassment prevention and whistleblowing channels, the biggest problem remains the gap between companies’ official discourses and what employees experience in their everyday professional life.

Also, in some companies, deleterious management methods are tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged by top executives and C-Suite managers. For those reasons, regulating the role of managers through European Managerial Aptitude Certification will significantly reduce risks of damaging employees' wellbeing while reinforcing employees’ motivation and productivity because European Managerial Aptitude Certification centers will have the ability to revoke and/or not to update already delivered certifications. This is a major dissuasive power, which will discourage managers and especially C-Suite managers from making use of toxic and deleterious management methods. European Managerial Aptitude Certification has a very big potential to contribute to saving money both for the company, for employees and for governments.

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies psychosocial risks at work including excessive workloads, understaffing, long or inflexible working hours, lack of control, poor organizational culture, limited support from management or colleagues, authoritarian supervision, unclear roles, discrimination, violence, harassment and bullying.

The WHO specifically recommends training managers so that they can recognize and respond to emotional distress, communicate openly, listen actively and understand how workplace stressors affect mental health.

Importantly, this does not mean turning managers into psychologists or doctors. Managers should be able to recognize problems, respond appropriately and direct employees towards qualified professional support when necessary.

The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) similarly identifies poor work organization and management, excessive workloads, unclear roles, ineffective communication and lack of support from management as potential psychosocial risks.

EU-OSHA also highlights the important role managers can play in preventing and managing psychosocial risks and the importance of appropriate manager training.

There is also a particularly interesting randomized controlled trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry. Researchers studied a mental-health training programme for managers in an Australian fire and rescue organisation.

After six months, the trained group had a reduction in work-related sickness absence, equivalent to approximately 6.45 fewer hours per employee over six months. The researchers also noted that further research was needed to establish how widely the findings could be applied.

Why could this matter to Europe?

Mental-health problems can affect people's quality of life, ability to work and participation in the labor market. They can also create costs for employers and wider society.

The WHO estimates that approximately 15% of working-age adults have a mental disorder at any given time, and has estimated enormous economic costs associated with depression and anxiety through lost productivity.

The point is that if workplace organization and management are one of the factors that can influence mental health, then improving managerial competence and, especially, regulating the role of managers could potentially be one part of a broader European strategy for healthier workplaces and less waste of economic means.

One important question is:

What does someone actually need to know and be able to do before being given substantial responsibility for other people's work?

Hence, a future EMAC curriculum could potentially include:

1. communication and active listening;

2. constructive feedback;

3. conflict resolution;

4. respectful and ethical leadership;

5. recognition and prevention of psychosocial risks;

6. workload and work-organisation principles;

7. prevention of bullying and harassment;

8. equality and non-discrimination;

9. basic employment and occupational-health responsibilities;

10. psychological safety;

11. managing organisational change;

12. handling difficult conversations;

13. recognising when an employee may need professional support;

14. knowing when to refer someone to occupational-health, medical or psychological services;

15. understanding the boundaries between management and healthcare;

16. reasonable workplace support and accommodation;

17. worker participation and consultation;

18. ethical decision-making;

19. managing performance without humiliation or abusive behaviour;

20. managing stress and pressure;

21. understanding how managerial decisions can affect employee wellbeing.

And one principle would be extremely important:

EMAC should not turn managers into doctors or psychologists.

A competent manager should know the difference between a management problem, an occupational-health problem and a situation requiring qualified medical or psychological assistance.

There are many questions we would need to solve

I don't believe the idea should be launched as though every detail has already been decided. This point is very important.

There are serious questions that need to be researched:

Who should need EMAC?

Would it apply to every person who supervises employees, or only people with formal managerial authority? (I think both, but the debate is open).

What about team leaders, project managers, directors, entrepreneurs and people who employ others? (I think they do need this certification , but the debate is open).

What should the examination measure?

We would need scientifically validated competencies rather than subjective opinions about what constitutes a "good manager."

Can EMAC or EMAC C-Suite certification be revoked?

Yes, especially if there are reported and well documented multiple cases of harassment or burnouts. The discussion of modalities is of course open to develop this lever.

How often should certification be renewed?

2 or 3 years!

Who should administer EMAC?

The EMAC Pan-European Structure that will organize the testing sessions and publish the textbooks to help candidates to get proper preparation for written and oral examination.

How should existing managers be treated?

How could small businesses avoid disproportionate administrative costs?

Businesses are not going to pay for the tests. Candidates who want to become managers are to pay for their tests just like they pay for their other diplomas and certifications. EMAC is not a school nor a university. It is a testing and certifying structure, but it can publish official guidelines and textbooks to help candidates to prepare their examination.

How would EMAC interact with the different labour laws of EU Member States?

Does the European Union actually have the legal competence to introduce such a system, and what would be the appropriate legal basis?

And that is exactly why I am looking for other people in here.

What I am looking for?

Let's investigate whether we can make my idea scientifically sound, legally possible and practically workable.

You don't need to be an expert.

You simply need to be genuinely interested in the idea and willing to help investigate it.

So here's my question to you:

Would you be interested in helping investigate and potentially build a European Citizens' Initiative for a European Managerial Aptitude Certification (EMAC)?

If yes, please comment below or send me a private message.

And if you know someone working in occupational health, psychology, HR, employment law, management, worker representation or EU policy who might be interested, please tag them or send them this post.

I'm particularly interested in finding people from different EU countries, because the organizers' group needs citizens living in at least seven different Member States.

We don't have to agree on every detail at the beginning.

We can start with one question:

Should Europe establish minimum competency standards for people who are given professional responsibility for managing other human beings?

If you think this question deserves to be investigated, I'd love to hear from you.

Categories

To be able to add comments, you need to authenticate or register.

Comments

SAIF AL MAYALI | 04 October 2026

Leonard, thank you for your message. I’m interested in joining as the Sweden co-organizer. Could you please clarify the official responsibilities, any legal or financial obligations, and how personal data will be protected during the registration process? I’d also appreciate knowing if there are any costs involved and whether the initiative’s legal basis has been reviewed. Thank you for considering my questions.

Elena Lambri | 04 October 2026

Hello!

I'm Elena, a 24-year-old from Italy.

On paper, I'm a non-formal educator for an NGO. In reality, I'm a young adult who has lived in four European countries, completed six internships before landing a stable job, and gained extensive experience in Erasmus+ projects.

In my previous roles, I experienced workplace bullying and ageism from my managers—to the point of needing therapy, and feeling forced to mask both my neurodivergence and my true self just to fit into everyday office life.

I want to contribute to this initiative by bringing a unique perspective rooted in non-formal education and intersectionality—insights and tools that, unfortunately, too often go unheard by HR professionals.

EMANUELE PACCHIAROTTI | 04 October 2026

Good morning, evening or afternoon,

I’m Emanuele a 22 year old boy who’s studying law in Rome (Italy). I’m passionate about EU Law and now I wish to apply my knowledge to some real case. I’ll help at the best off my possibility in case I will get chosen for helping this noble cause.

In faith

Emanuele Pacchiarotti

Diego Marcos | 05 October 2026

Hi Leonard.

I consider the proposal very interesting and believe that it addresses a real problem that is, in my opinion, becoming increasingly important. I completely agree with the objective of improving the quality of management and reducing the negative effects that poor management can generate both for people and for organizations.

However, I believe there is an important issue regarding the way in which the proposal is formalized.

My main concern is whether an individual certification or examination for managers can actually solve the underlying problem.

Companies already have very powerful mechanisms to put pressure on their managers to achieve certain results: bonuses, targets, performance-related incentives, motivation programmes, performance evaluations, etc… Particularly at management level, there is a strong culture focused on achieving objectives and growth (I was C-Level in an IBEX-35 company).

Therefore, I am not sure that companies necessarily have sufficient incentives to prioritizes a certification whose objective is to guarantee healthier management if the market itself continues to reward, in certain contexts, much more aggressive behaviors focused exclusively on results.

An unintended consequence could even arise.

Imagine two equally capable managers. One completes the certification, adopts certain management standards and limits certain pressure-based practices towards their teams. The other does not do so and continues to use much more aggressive methods to achieve targets.

If the market continues to reward results above everything else, the first manager could ultimately become less professionally competitive than the second.

For this reason, I believe that the problem should not be addressed exclusively from the perspective of individual training.

I also have doubts as to whether an examination is the right mechanism.

Anyone who has developed a management career in large companies has probably already undergone numerous tests, psychometric assessments, leadership programmes, management courses and competency evaluations.

Passing an examination demonstrates that a person understands certain principles.

But it does not necessarily demonstrate that they apply those principles when they are under pressure, when they have highly demanding targets, when their bonus depends on certain results or when the organization they work for rewards behaviors that may conflict with those principles.

In other words: knowing how a team should be managed does not necessarily mean managing it well.

And I believe this distinction is fundamental.

There is also another important difficulty: not all managers work in the same context.

Managing people in a technology company, a factory, a hospital, a financial institution, a retail company or an infrastructure company can involve completely different levels of pressure, risk, responsibility and expectations.

Therefore, I believe it would be dangerous to establish an excessively homogeneous framework that ultimately assumes that there is only one correct way to manage.

The standard should establish minimum principles, but it should also allow for adaptation to the context of each industry, company and position.

The generational component

I also believe that we need to incorporate a variable that may be controversial but which I consider very important: social standards change.

I am 45 years old and have been able to see how significantly perceptions have changed regarding stress, working hours, professional pressure and what is considered an acceptable relationship between a company and its employees.

Behaviours that could have been considered normal 20 years ago may today be considered completely unacceptable. And probably the same will happen over the next 20 years.

Therefore, any assessment system should be dynamic and evolve alongside new generations and social changes.

We cannot establish today a definitive score for what constitutes "poor management" and assume that it will remain valid for decades.

Moving from certifying individuals to certifying organizations

For all these reasons, I believe it would be much more interesting to shift the focus of the proposal.

Instead of asking ourselves: "Is this manager certified?"

we should ask ourselves: "Does this organization have mechanisms capable of detecting and correcting poor management?"

Here I see an interesting analogy with standards such as ISO 27001.

ISO 27001 does not seek to demonstrate that a particular person knows about cybersecurity. It seeks to ensure that the organization has a management system, controls, processes, responsibilities, detection mechanisms and continuous improvement procedures.

I believe something similar could be applied to management.

A European standard for responsible people management could be established, under which companies would have to demonstrate that they have continuous mechanisms in place to detect certain management-related risks.

Technology as a detection mechanism

And here I believe there is a particularly interesting opportunity.

Organizations currently have access to an enormous amount of information that can be used to detect abnormal patterns.

For example: excessive turnover within certain teams, abnormal increases in absenteeism, recurring sick leave, excessively long working hours, loss of productivity, concentrations of employee departures around particular managers, unusually low satisfaction results within certain teams, increases in internal conflicts, recurring complaints, loss of talent, abnormal levels of organizational stress or any other metric that could help identify a pattern of deterioration.

Technology could be used to detect these patterns in an aggregated and preventive way.

The objective would not be to permanently "monitor" employees or turn the system into an individual surveillance tool. The objective would be to detect that, for example, a particular department has been showing significantly worse indicators than the rest of the organization for six months.

That should trigger a review.

And that review would make it possible to analyze whether the problem comes from the manager, the organizational structure, poorly defined objectives, excessive workload, lack of resources or any other cause.

Continuous certification, rather than an examination every few years

This approach would also solve another problem.

The fact that a person has obtained a certification today does not mean that they will manage correctly two years from now. People change. Organizations change. Markets change. Objectives change. Teams change. Therefore, the assessment should be continuous.

There is also an economic argument, because I believe this approach would also make the initiative much more attractive to companies themselves.

Poor management is not only an employee wellbeing issue.

It also has an economic cost.

Therefore, the argument could become: "Companies should have mechanisms to identify and reduce the human and economic costs resulting from poor management."

I believe this approach could be much easier to defend to companies themselves.

My conclusion:

Therefore, I consider the initiative to be very good and necessary.

My criticism is not directed at the objective, but at the mechanism. I believe it would be too limited to try to solve a systemic problem through an individual examination for managers.

I would find it much more powerful to develop a European standard for responsible management, based on organizational controls, objective indicators, continuous assessment, periodic audits and improvement mechanisms.

The manager would remain a fundamental part of the system, but would not be the sole subject of evaluation.

The point should be if the company has a sufficiently robust system to detect when management is causing unjustified deterioration among people and within the organization itself, and whether it has mechanisms in place to act before the problem turns into burnout, turnover, loss of talent or deterioration in results.

I believe that this change of approach could turn a good idea into a much stronger, scalable and viable proposal at European level.

LÉONARD SARGSYAN | 06 October 2026

Dear Diego,

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’ve read it carefully, and I truly appreciate your insights and concerns. Discussions like this are invaluable—they allow us to address doubts, refine ideas, and strengthen my initial draft. My goal is to listen, learn, and incorporate feedback to make the petition more comprehensive, clear, and impactful. Every comment adds depth and precision, and over time, this collaborative process will ensure the final version is robust and ready for an official launch.

I will do my utmost to address your considerations thoroughly. That said, I also have my own perspective to share.

Key Points for Clarification

1. The Necessity of EMAC as an Individual Certification

EMAC is designed as an individual certification and examination for managers, not a replacement for company-level accountability or private companies' inner initiatives. It ensures personal responsibility for managers while maintaining company's responsibility for the organization’s initiatives. These two aspects are complementary, not mutually exclusive, because an excellent and very-well certified company sometimes hires a deleterious CEO and other toxic managers, who use the company's good reputation and high-level certifications as a shield behind which deleterious and sometimes fatal methods are encouraged. Therefore, we need a reasonable level of personal accountability from managers and especially from C-Suite managers to complete companies' initiatives. EMAC is the response to this need.

You mentioned in your comment:

“Companies already have very powerful mechanisms to put pressure on their managers to achieve certain results: bonuses, targets, performance-related incentives, motivation programmes, performance evaluations, etc.… Particularly at management level, there is a strong culture focused on achieving objectives and growth (I was C-Level in an IBEX-35 company).”

My response:
EMAC is not about teaching managers MBA-level commercial or financial strategies to achieve targets or drive growth. Instead, it focuses exclusively on psychosocial risks—harassment, burnout, bore-out, and brown-out prevention. Its purpose is to equip managers and C-Suite executives with the knowledge to integrate relational skills into their existing commercial, strategic, and financial expertise while reminding them not non-compliance with the EMAC certification may cost them a revocation of the certification. No valid EMAC certification = no possibility to be a manager inside European Union.

In other words, EMAC certifies relational aptitude—the ability to work effectively with people. Technical, commercial, or financial expertise alone does not guarantee nor improves strong relational skills. Managing people requires a distinct set of competencies that are often undervalued or skipped in traditional management training.

Every manager will still keep his/her own commercial style of management and his/her financial strategies and policies. The only component that is going to be regulated through EMAC in the managerial universe is the absolute and categoric prohibition of deleterious methods (unnecessary stress, harassment, burnout, belittling subordinates, hoarding credit, blaming others for failures, fostering a culture of fear and intimidation, bullying, micromanagement, gaslighting, and passive-aggression) be it in commercial, financial, strategical etc.

The problem is also very visible in some milieus where managers often arrive to C-Suite posts from nepotism.

2. EMAC as a Checks-and-Balances Mechanism

EMAC will serve as a legal and dissuasive tool to revoke certifications from managers who engage in repetitive harassment or abuse. Similar prohibitions from practicing as a manager aligns with regulations in other professions (e.g., heating technicians, brokers, lawyers, nurses) across the EU.

The certification acts as a deterrent against harmful management practices, particularly those used to force employees to meet targets at any cost, sometimes causing mental breakdown and suicide.

3. Addressing the Risk of Unintended Consequences

You raised a valid concern:

“An unintended consequence could even arise. Imagine two equally capable managers. One completes the certification, adopts certain management standards, and limits pressure-based practices toward their teams. The other does not do so and continues to use more aggressive methods to achieve targets. If the market continues to reward results above everything else, the first manager could ultimately become less professionally competitive than the second. For this reason, I believe that the problem should not be addressed exclusively from the perspective of individual training.”

My response:
Aggressive methods to achieve targets are not only counterproductive but often illegal. If the first manager adheres to ethical standards, they should not be penalized for refusing to adopt harmful practices. And if the second manager adheres to aggressive methods and if there are proofs from his employees, EMAC can use its revocation tool and neutralize the aggressive manager or C-Suite manager. EMAC’s goal is to prevent unethical or aggressive individuals from entering or remaining in managerial roles.

4. The Feasibility of Defining “Poor Management”

You noted:

“We cannot establish today a definitive score for what constitutes "poor management" and assume that it will remain valid for decades. Moving from certifying individuals to certifying organizations…”

My response:
Yes, we can define deleterious management—and EMAC is being designed to do exactly that in the most precise way possible. As a checks-and-balances system, EMAC will have the authority to revoke certifications for managers responsible for multiple cases of suicide, depression, burnout, or harassment.

Similar approach is already standard for some regulated professions (e.g., brokers, lawyers, nurses, firefighters, heating technicians) across the EU. The criteria for revocation will evolve and become better over time, but the framework and the vision is legally and structurally sound and necessary.

4. Lessons from France Telecom: A Case Study in Unethical Management

The France Telecom suicide crisis—where over 30 employees took their lives between 2008 and 2010—stands as a tragic example of what happens when aggressive management tactics are prioritized over employee well-being and so-called “growth policy or strategy”. Investigations revealed that the company’s leadership had implemented brutal restructuring plans, including forced relocations and public humiliation of employees, which created a toxic work environment. While the company was later held accountable, the damage was irreversible. This case underscores the urgent need for individual accountability in management. EMAC’s revocation power would act as a critical safeguard and a powerful dissuasive tool, ensuring that managers who contribute to such environments cannot simply move to another company and repeat their harmful behavior simply because if one wants to work as a manager he/she has to have a valid EMAC certification. Without individual certification tied to ethical standards, organizations may continue to recycle toxic managers, perpetuating cycles of abuse.

5. Europe-run public Individual Certification vs. Private Organizational Certification

You suggested:

“Instead of asking ourselves: "Is this manager certified?", we should ask ourselves: "Does this organization have mechanisms capable of detecting and correcting poor management?"

My response:
Even the most well-certified companies can fail to prevent harassment or abuse. There are numerous cases across the EU where highly certified companies and their managers have been convicted for psychosocial risks, often stemming from C-Suite-level strategies that prioritize aggressive targets over employee well-being.

EMAC fills this critical gap by:

Holding individuals accountable for their management practices.

Serving as a dissuasive and structural safeguard for companies.

Ensuring that technical and strategic excellence is paired with human-centered leadership.

Studies show that C-Suite managers achieve better results when they adopt positive, human-centered management styles rather than relying on aggression or exploitation.

6. The Evolution of EMAC Principles

EMAC is not a static set of rules. Like any robust certification system, its principles will evolve and improve over time through feedback, research, and adaptation.

7. Main purposes of regulating a profession

We often regulate different professions in order to reduce harmful risks against humans’ psychological or physical integrity. Today, many managers are too often at the origin of workplace ill-being. Regulating this profession will not only help companies and countries to save money on sick-leaves, but it will also help us to have more motivated and productive employees who will contribute more effectively to companies and hence to countries:)

A manager wields just as much influence over people’s lives, livelihoods, and well-being as lawyers, firefighters, brokers, heating technicians, doctors, or any other regulated profession. There is no justification—none—for excluding managers from regulation. Their decisions shape teams, careers, and entire organizations, and the absence of oversight is an unacceptable gap in accountability. Regulation isn’t just warranted, it’s overdue.

8. The Science Behind Human-Centered Leadership: How Ethical Management Drives Performance

Decades of research in organizational psychology and behavioral economics confirm that ethical, inclusive, and human-centered leadership significantly outperforms toxic or pressure-driven management. A landmark 2015 meta-analysis published in The Leadership Quarterly (by Hoch et al.), which reviewed 170 studies across 198,000 individuals, found that ethical leadership—defined as fairness, transparency, and respect—correlates strongly with higher employee engagement, creativity, and job performance. Similarly, a Harvard Business Review study (2021) analyzing 1.2 million employees across 500 organizations revealed that teams led by managers who prioritize psychological safety (a concept popularized by Google’s Project Aristotle) were not only happier but 30% more productive than those operating under high-pressure, toxic environments.

Further evidence comes from Gallup’s 2023 State of the Global Workplace Report, which found that employees who feel supported and valued by their managers are 60% less likely to experience burnout and 4x more likely to innovate. Even financial performance is affected: a 2022 study by the Journal of Corporate Finance demonstrated that companies with high ethical standards and employee well-being programs outperformed their peers in the S&P 500 by 2.5% annually over a decade. These findings align with Adam Grant’s research at Wharton, which shows that employees under human-centered leaders exhibit higher levels of trust, collaboration, and resilience, directly translating into better business outcomes.

In contrast, toxic management—characterized by bullying, unrealistic demands, and disregard for work-life balance—leads to higher turnover (up to 50% in some sectors, per a MIT Sloan Management Review study), increased absenteeism, and long-term reputational damage. The France Telecom case is a stark reminder of these costs. By contrast, EMAC’s focus on relational skills and ethical accountability ensures that managers are not only technically competent but also psychologically equipped to foster environments where performance thrives without sacrificing well-being.

Final Thoughts

EMAC is more than a certification—it’s a cultural and structural shift toward ethical, responsible, and effective management. By combining individual accountability through European and state-level regulation, which is EMAC’s ambition, with organizations’ private initiatives, we can create a fairer system that benefits both employees and businesses.

Dear Diego, I’m grateful for your engagement and am going to add all the precisions inside the draft so that it will become clearer and stronger for everyone.

Best regards,

Léonard Sargsyan

Shashi Bhushan | 06 October 2026

Dear Leonard, Good day!

Thank you for starting such a noble initiative. I am very interested in it because I strongly align with its aims.

I agree that helping managers understand the human side of work can have a positive impact on employees and, more broadly, on society as a whole.

This is very much connected to my research topic in Luxembourg, where I am currently interviewing spouses of expats about their job search experiences. It's also aligned with the kind of work my non-profit association is doing.

Kind regards,

Shashi BHUSHAN

SOLACE asbl

Luxembourg

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on the ECI Forum reflect solely the point of view of their authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the position of the European Commission or of the European Union.

Mechanism Against Toxic Management | Reducing Costs Related to Toxic Management (Sick Leaves, Employees' Lack of Motivation and Productivity)

Leave a comment

Comments