It's definitely a two-way street. Employees bear some degree of responsibility for self-esteem and upholding of limits. At the same time, managers bear a big degree of responsibility for the productivity and wellbeing of their employees. And when they cross lines and reject reasonable limits, that shouldn't be seen by default as the employee's failing.
I've worked for a big corporation in the past that bore a particularly onerous, victim-blaming animus toward its employees. Anytime anyone, anywhere, had an issue with his boss, he was told to "learn to manage upward." "Managing upward" became a catch-all excuse for allowing a boss's failures to be re-characterized as your own. As it so happened, our division had a few downright abusive bosses. I mean, abusive in the legally actionable sense of the word. And their direct reports would invariably try to "manage upward," then get firmly reprimanded for doing so. To top it off, they'd be labeled internally as malcontents, politically isolated, and subjected to further abuses. Not surprisingly, very few people below the upper-middle-management tier of this company stuck around for longer than a year.
I've worked for a big corporation in the past that bore a particularly onerous, victim-blaming animus toward its employees. Anytime anyone, anywhere, had an issue with his boss, he was told to "learn to manage upward." "Managing upward" became a catch-all excuse for allowing a boss's failures to be re-characterized as your own. As it so happened, our division had a few downright abusive bosses. I mean, abusive in the legally actionable sense of the word. And their direct reports would invariably try to "manage upward," then get firmly reprimanded for doing so. To top it off, they'd be labeled internally as malcontents, politically isolated, and subjected to further abuses. Not surprisingly, very few people below the upper-middle-management tier of this company stuck around for longer than a year.