Bottom-line mentality and abusive supervisory behaviour in MSMEs: how do they affect employee outcomes?

Abstract

Purpose

Grounded on trait activation and social learning theories, this study aims to examine the effects of bottom-line mentality (BLM) and perceived abusive supervisory behaviour on proactive employee work behaviour and employee bottom-line mentality (EBLM) in micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in Ghana. The moderating effects of relational attachment on how abusive supervisory behaviour relates to employee proactive work behaviour (PWB) and BLM were examined.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was based on a quantitative approach. An online questionnaire was used in a cross-sectional survey to elicit data from 643 conveniently sampled employees. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the data.

Findings

The results support the proposition that owner-manager bottom-line mentality (OMBLM) positively and significantly predicts abusive supervision. The findings also revealed that owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour significantly predicts employee PWB and EBLM. While the moderating effect of relational attachment on the relationship between perceived owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour and EBLM is positive and significant, its effect on perceived owner-manager abusive supervisory and proactive employee work behaviour relationship was positive but insignificant.

Originality/value

The authors studied owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour to understand how OMBLM relates to proactive employee work behaviour and EBLM among MSMEs in Ghana. The study sets the tone to investigate further the impact of OMBLM and the functional effect of owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour on manager–employee relationships and outcomes among MSMEs in emerging economies.

Citation

Hanu, C., Agbenyegah, A.T., Kumadey, G., Amankwaa, R. and Ofosu-Appiah, S. (2024), "Bottom-line mentality and abusive supervisory behaviour in MSMEs: how do they affect employee outcomes?", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1276-1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2022-0215

1. Introduction

Small enterprise growth and development have generally been described as an engine of growth in emerging economies, especially in emerging economies (Isaga et al., 2015; Kuada, 2022). Despite the contributions of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) that drive the growth of developing economies (Agyapong and Attram, 2019; Oppong et al., 2014), the ability of owners and managers to make the enterprises profitable remains a challenge (Mohammed and Bunyaminu, 2021; Mensah et al., 2019; Musah et al., 2018). For instance, approximately 74% of MSMEs are financially constrained (World Bank, 2021; IFC, MSME Finance Gap, 2019). Hence, many empirical findings emphasise the importance of financial delivery for small enterprise growth (Kuada, 2022; Quartey et al., 2017). To ensure the financial well-being of their enterprises, owner-managers tend to ensure that their employees act proactively and make the firm profitable. The extent to which some owner-managers exercise such supervisory roles creates the perception that profit-making is more important than the well-being of employees and the ethical repercussions of their decisions on the enterprise. Some scholars, such as Rice and Reed (2021) and Greenbaum et al. (2012), refer to this phenomenon as a bottom-line mentality (BLM).

Grounded on trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett, 2003), this study suggests that the need for owner-managers to achieve the bottom line compels them to adopt abusive supervisory behaviours, which refers to perceived owner-mangers’ continuous display of hostile behaviours towards employees as a tactic to ensure performance (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2020). According to trait activation theory, individual behaviours differ depending on the circumstances (Tett and Burnett, 2003; Tett and Guterman, 2000). This theory suggests that the traits individuals activate or exhibit are contingent on specific situations and the goals the individual intends to achieve (Tett and Guterman, 2000). This implies that individual traits are not static but can change based on changing circumstances (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Therefore, it is trait relevant when owner-managers adopt BLM, which, in turn, induces their abusive supervisory behaviour. Thus, owner-managers BLM is activated by the incidentally stable context of the business that requires the enterprise to meet specific financial targets. For example, the adverse economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on MSMEs require owner-managers to make their enterprises more resilient and profitable (Portuguez Castro and Gómez Zermeño, 2021; Sharma and Rautela, 2021). Alternatively, the bottom-line traits of the owner-managers are activated because of the motive of making the enterprise profitable. These situations drive owner-managers to develop BLM and abusive supervision behaviour to achieve the bottom line.

Furthermore, this study draws on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and argues that when employees perceive that owner-managers exhibit BLM and abusive supervisory behaviour, it provides information for them to understand that achieving financial results is paramount and that they must work to achieve the financial targets. Social learning theory states that the environment in which people find themselves causes them to learn by imitating the attitudes and behaviours of others (Bandura, 1977). According to social learning theory, employees learn by observing the behaviours of others, how those behaviours impact them positively or negatively, and how those behaviours influence what they do, feel or think about themselves and others (Bandura, 1986; Zhang et al., 2021). Hence, based on owner-manager BLM (OMBLM) and perceived abusive supervisory behaviour (OMASB), employees learn to adopt coping behaviours by emulating the BLM of the owner-managers and also assume proactive work behaviour (PWB) than a threat-rigidity response or counterproductive behaviour. PWB refers to employees’ ability to identify possible challenges or opportunities in the work environment and self-initiate change to create a better future work situation (Parker and Collins, 2010). Consistent with social learning theory, Zhang et al. (2021) suggest that subordinates learn from their superiors and adjust their behaviours accordingly.

While previous ties manager or supervisor BLM and abusive supervision to adverse employee outcomes such as poor performance, disengagement and co-worker undermining (Mackey et al., 2017; Lyu et al., 2016; Greenbaum et al., 2012), studies examining positive outcomes of abusive supervision are sparse (Callahan, 2004; Zhang and Liu, 2018). In addition, there is a lack of research on how relational attachment may impact employee BLM and PWB. Moreover, to our best knowledge, there is rare research on owner-manager BLM and abusive supervision in MSMEs in developing economies, especially in contexts where obedience to authority figures are highly valued. Hence, the need for further research to examine the impact of owner-manager BLM and abusive supervision on employee outcomes and also examine the potential moderating effect of relational attachment on employee BLM and PWB. Therefore, this study draws on social learning and trait activation theories to examine how BLM and perceived abusive behaviour of owner-managers in MSMEs may affect employees’ bottom-line mindset and PWB. The study also examined the role of relational attachment on the relationship between perceived abusive supervision behaviour and employee outcomes of the research model. In this study, relational attachment describes employees’ feelings of closeness and commitment to others in the enterprise (Khan, 2017). Therefore, this study suggests that when employees are relationally attached to the owner-managers, they tend to regulate their emotions, reducing abusive supervision's effect on their work performance. Hence, for relationship sake, employees can control any possible adverse effect of the owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour and take proactive measures to achieve the bottom line. Therefore, relational attachment is a vital interactive factor that employees might observe and determine how their relationship affects what they do, feel or think about the behaviour of their owner-managers (Zhang et al., 2021).

This study contributes to the literature on BLM and abusive supervision in MSMEs. Theoretically, the study relied on trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett, 2003) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) to investigate and enhance the literature on construct relationships in the proposed research model, particularly in a developing country context. For example, Greenbaum et al. (2012) have established a direct relationship between supervisors and employees BLM. However, the mechanisms by which supervisor BLM predicts employee BLM have been sparsely investigated (Greenbaum et al., 2012). This study extends the literature by proposing perceived abusive supervision behaviour as one of the mediators by which OMBLM relates to employee proactivity and EBLM. Furthermore, this study contributes to growing arguments about abusive supervision's positive or negative outcomes (Mackey et al., 2017; Lyu et al., 2016; Zhang and Liu, 2018). Hence, this study provides an empirical outcome to extend the literature on the limited findings that abusive supervision associates with positive outcomes. A study of BLM and abusive supervision can provide insightful information on balancing financial goals with employee well-being among MSMEs in developing economies. In addition, the evidence from the moderating effect of relational attachment provides insight into the positive effect of reducing the negative effect of abusive supervision on employee bottom-line mentality (EBLM) and PWB. Finally, the blended theory perspective of this study provides a theoretical basis for identifying trait-relevant outcomes of BLM and abusive supervision.

The rest of the paper follows this pattern: Section 2 provides a literature review on the primary constructs; Section 3 delineates the methodological approach; Section 4 provides the results; Section 5 deals with the outcomes of the data analysis with sub-themes on theoretical contributions, implications for practice, limitations and future research directions; and Section 6 presents the conclusion of the study.

2. Theoretical review and hypothesis development

2.1 Owner-manager and employee bottom-line mentality

BLM refers to “one-dimensional thinking that revolves around securing bottom-line outcomes to neglect competing priorities” (Greenbaum et al., 2012, p. 343). It is a concept that prioritises profit above all other aspects of a business. BLM reflects a situation in which owner-managers display behaviours that create the perceptual reality that making a profit for the enterprise is paramount over everything else. BLM is evident in many MSMEs where owners mostly make financial decisions and are directly involved in managing the enterprise daily (Rasheed and Rahman, 2018; Babalola et al., 2021; Braidford et al., 2017). While focusing on profitability is an indispensable part of managing a successful enterprise, a disparate emphasis on the bottom line can have negative consequences. For example, at the employee level, some scholars have indicated that owner-managers’ high BLM can lead to undue employee stress, counterproductive behaviour, reduced employee commitment and create a culture of cutthroat competition and individualism among co-workers rather than collaboration and mutual benefit (Farasat and Azam, 2022; Greenbaum et al., 2021; Bonner et al., 2017; Greenbaum et al., 2012). At the managerial level, evidence in the literature shows that leaders’ BLM predicts outcomes such as abusive supervision (Greenbaum et al., 2012) and unethical pro-leader behaviour (Mesdaghinia et al., 2019). Thus, when financial results become the primary consideration, owner-managers may make decisions that can harm their reputation, the long-term goals of the enterprise and damage relationships with stakeholders.

Conversely, studies have shown that employees respond favourably to managers with high BLM by achieving and maintaining continuous performance (Chen et al., 2022; Babalola et al., 2021; Babalola et al., 2020; Quade et al., 2020; Widianingtya, 2019), when they expect to be rewarded or avoid punishment for poor performance (Astuti et al., 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2012; Corr, 2004). For example, a recent study shows that supervisors with high BLM elevate employee task performance (Babalola et al., 2021) and stimulate employee perceptions of a competitive climate that ultimately enables employees to thrive at work (Babalola et al., 2022). Because employees want to avoid punishment or obtain the reward, they are compelled to behave in consonant with OMBLM at the expense of other equally critical factors that would yield to the organisation’s well-being. Wolfe (1988) and Greenbaum et al. (2012) also described this one-dimensional mindset of employees as employee BLM, which some researchers suggest is a mixed blessing because such employees will focus on BLM rather than being dysfunctional (Babalola et al., 2020).

2.2 Abusive supervision

In the recent decade, there has been an increasing scholarly interest in abusive supervision in management research. The extant literature on leadership behaviour has recorded several behavioural attitudes of supervisors and managers towards their employees that have been described as abusive (Wang et al., 2022; Agarwal et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Tepper et al., 2017; Zhang and Liao, 2015; Mawritz et al., 2012; Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision refers to subordinates’ perceptions of how owner-managers engage in a sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000). Abusive managers tend to be impolite, engage in open and destructive criticism, set unrealistic goals, excessively monitor their employees and exhibit insensitive behaviour towards them (Chen et al., 2021; Khan, 2019; Tepper, 2000).

In the MSMEs context, where the owner-manager directly interacts with their employees, abusive supervision can significantly impact the employee’s work-related outcomes. Generally, many scholars perceive managers’ abusive supervision behaviours as dysfunctional and have negative consequences for employees and the enterprise (Mackey et al., 2017; Lyu et al., 2016; Zhang and Liao, 2015). For example, employees who feel their managers are abusive may want to leave the enterprise (Moin et al., 2021; Agarwal, 2019), adopt counterproductive behaviour (Liu et al., 2016; Rousseau and Aubé, 2018) or decide to be silent (Hao et al., 2022; Morsch et al., 2020). However, some studies have suggested that abusive supervision behaviours do not necessarily lead to adverse outcomes (Zhang and Liu, 2018; Vogel et al., 2015). They argued that subordinates who know their managers may abuse them for not engaging in productive activities would take proactive steps to engage in productive work activities. For instance, Usman et al. (2021) found that abusive supervision can lead to thriving at work. Similarly, Hameed et al. (2021) affirmed that abusive supervision positively affects subordinate performance. Drawing lessons from the divergent effects of abusive supervisory behaviour offered in the literature, this study puts forth the following propositions:

H1.

Owner-manager bottom-line mentality may positively lead to owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour.

H2.

Owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour positively leads to employee bottom-line mentality.

2.3 Proactive work behaviour

Previously, it was principally the duty of business owners and managers to plan, organise resources and ensure that subordinates implement the plan (Campbell, 2000). However, the dynamic competitive environments in recent years require employees to take personal and future-oriented initiatives that would result in their personal and enterprise productivity. Researchers refer to PWB as self-directed and future-focused actions in which the individual aims to bring about change, including a change to an enterprise situation and change within oneself (Bindl and Parker, 2011; Frese and Fay, 2001; Crant, 2000). PWB emphasise that employees take the initiative to identify opportunities for improvement and make changes in their work environment (Bindl and Parker, 2011; Frese and Fay, 2001).

Drawing on seminal studies, Bindl and Parker (2012) synthesised PWB into four dimensions: envisioning, planning, enacting and reflecting. Envisioning refers to workers’ ability to identify and pursue new opportunities before they become apparent to others. For example, employees who seek new challenges and accept additional responsibilities engage in envisioning behaviour (Tims et al., 2013). The planning dimension involves developing specific alternative goals and objectives consistent with the vision while enacting requires the employee to take the necessary steps to implement the required plan to achieve the goals envisaged. This dimension enables employees to take action and progress with their goals and plans (Crant, 2000; Parker and Collins, 2010). Finally, the reflecting dimension requires employees to appraise their performance and examine the effects of their initiatives on the enterprise's success (Bindl and Parker, 2012; Parker and Collins, 2010). Accordingly, Bindl and Parker (2012) posit that these fur dimensions enable employees to make valuable contributions to their enterprises.

Recently, researchers have developed a continuous interest in MSMEs’ ability to adapt to uncertainties, including how workers can assume change-oriented and proactive workplace behaviours (Bilal et al., 2021; Spiess and Zehrer, 2020; Liu et al., 2017). Thus, given MSMEs' current competitive and dynamic environment, owner-managers tend to ensure that employees take the initiative to enhance enterprise productivity. By contrast, subordinates who lack a sense of proactivity cannot identify emerging problems and take advantage of the opportunities available to their enterprises. Taking clues from empirical records that have confirmed that abusive supervision is not necessarily dysfunctional and can result in positive outcomes (Xu et al., 2018; Lyu et al., 2016), this study proposes that:

H3.

Owner-manager abusive supervision may positively lead to proactive employee work behaviour.

2.4 The moderating role of relational attachment

Relational attachment describes the total experience of feeling close and connected to others at work (Ehrhardt and Ragins, 2019). Relationships are essential to employees and organisational life (Kahn, 1998). According to Ashforth et al. (2007), how people relate in the workplace is critical for organisational life. Subordinates will bond with their organisations if they perceive the relationship at work to be positive and supportive (Ehrhardt and Ragins, 2019; Kahn, 2017; Rousseau and Ling, 2007). A relationship within an enterprise is positive if existing exchanges or interactions are genuine and allow subordinates to psychologically and emotionally engage in their work (Khan, 2017; Ragins and Dutton, 2017). According to Khan (1998) and empirically supported by Ehrhardt and Ragins (2019), the better a positive workplace relationship, the stronger individuals are attached to their colleagues and the organisation, making their presence felt and achieving more remarkable results. Stronger relational attachment enables owner-managers and employees to interact better and honestly, induces mutual support and promotes cooperative work attitudes (Lambrechts et al., 2009). Thus, “employees extrapolate their attachment to others at work into feelings of attachment with the organisation itself” (Ehrhardt and Ragins, 2019, p.14).

The extant relational literature shows that relational attachment can moderate stressors on individual outcomes (Umans et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Ruppel and Curran, 2012; Baptist, 2012). For example, studies have shown that employees with strong emotional attachments demonstrate resilience and can self-regulate to maintain stable emotions (Jenkins, 2016). Conversely, employees with low relational attachment experience negative emotions and outcomes (Jenkins, 2016). Given that abusive supervision can yield negative outcomes (Zhang and Liu, 2018; Vogel et al., 2015), this study suggests that relational attachment may reduce negative effects owner-manager abusive supervision may generate and hence drive employees to positive outcomes. Therefore, this study puts forth the following propositions:

H4a.

Relational attachment may positively and significantly influence the relationship between owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour and employee bottom-line mentality.

H4b.

Relational attachment may positively and significantly influence the relationship between owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour and proactive employee work behaviour.

2.5 The mediating role of abusive supervision

Seminal studies have directly linked managers with high BLM to abusive supervisory behaviour (Mawritz et al., 2017) and EBLM (Greenbaum et al., 2012). Besides, researchers have confirmed functional outcomes of supervisors’ abusive attitudes (Zhang and Liu, 2018; Vogel et al., 2015). Hence, the present study suggests that owner-managers supervisors’ abusive behaviour may serve as a mechanism through which owner-managers may further convey their BLM and place a premium on PWB in achieving the bottom line. Taking a cue from the limited studies that have employed abusive supervision as mediating construct (Brees, 2014), this study proposes that:

H5a.

Owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour may positively mediate how OMBLM relates to EBLM.

H5b.

Owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour may positively mediate how OMBLM relates to the proactive work behaviour of employees.

2.6 Conceptual model

The study’s model is shown in Figure 1. It shows the relationships between OMBLM (independent variable), owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour (mediating variable), PWB and EBLM (dependent variables) and relational attachment (moderating variable). Based on this integrated research model, the study posits that the desire of owner-managers to achieve the bottom line drives them to adopt behaviours that employees perceive as abusive, which is a form of owner-manager behaviours that employees perceived as hostile (Tepper, 2000). The model argues that owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour can influences employee attitudes and behaviours, such as employee BLM and PWB. Furthermore, this model argues that employee relational attachment will lessen the effect of owner-manager abusive supervision on their BLM and PWB. Given this background, Figure 1 proposed and developed a framework that hypothesised the linkages between variables as indicated below.

3. Method

3.1 Sampling and procedure

This study was conducted using a quantitative method. Data were collected using an online questionnaire based on a cross-sectional survey of 643 employees working with MSMEs located across the Western, Central, Eastern, Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. We focused on MSMEs which the owners doubled as managers. Since the instrument used was an online questionnaire, employees who found it convenient to use their smartphones to participate in the survey were sampled. Convenient sampling was used because the authors did not have access to the list of sampling frames of the target population. For respondents in all small and medium-scale enterprises, the Google Form questionnaire web link was administered via the employees’ group WhatsApp platform. In most micro-enterprises, the link was shared with employees willing to participate in the survey. Employees who participated in the survey worked with enterprises, such as agri-business, manufacturing, private educational institutions, micro-finances, legal services and consultancies, hospitality and retailing.

After accounting for the valid data set, the data show that males constituted 52.1% of the respondents, and the female participants were 47.9%. Most respondents were between 23 and 38 years, representing 83.6% of the respondents. Regarding the highest educational level, 35.1% had a higher national diploma, 27% had a bachelor’s degree and 34.3% had postgraduate degrees. According to the classification of enterprises, 27%, 43.2% and 29.8% of the respondents worked with MSMEs.

3.2 Research instrument

The constructs were measured using validated items from the literature (see Appendix for details). Both the OMBLM and EBLM were measured using four items (Greenbaum et al., 2012). For example, a sample item measuring OMBLM is “At work, the owner of the enterprise is solely concerned about making profits or achieving financial targets” while an example measuring EBLM is “At work, I am solely concerned about meeting my target”. Cronbach’s alpha for OMBLM and EBLM were 0.86 and 0.79, respectively.

Employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision behaviours were rated using five items (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007). An example of the items is “The owner of the enterprise does not give me credit for jobs requiring much effort”. The internal consistency was 0.90.

The perception of employee relational attachment was assessed using six items from Ehrhardt and Ragins (2019). A sample item is “I am attached to the business”, and the internal reliability value was 0.79.

Proactive employee work behaviour was measured using 12 items (Griffin et al., 2007; Bindl et al., 2012). A sample item is “Over the last month; I spent much time and effort to make changes to the way I perform my main tasks”. The summative Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.71. The items for each construct were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.3 Common method bias

Like many survey data sets, this study is equally prone to common method bias (CMB) because data on both exogenous and endogenous constructs were obtained from the same respondents (Yáñez-Araque et al., 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003). To reduce CMB, the constructs in the research instrument were arranged to make it difficult for the respondents to predict relationship trends. In addition, the data were drawn from multiple sources, reducing any CMB’s potential (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, the suggestions of Harman (1976) were followed to evaluate CMB by conducting Harman’s single-factor test to evaluate CMB. The test outcome revealed the absence of CMB because the cumulative variance was less than the 50% rule of thumb (Sharma et al., 2021).

To check for non-response bias, the first 10% of the received responses were compared with the last 10% of the received responses using a t-test, assuming a normal distribution (Lumley et al., 2002) and equal variance (Markowski and Markowski, 1990). The mean score showed no significant difference between the first and last 10% of the responses, indicating that CMB was not a problem in this study.

3.4 Statistical procedure

SPSS (version 27) was used to analyse the biographical variables and assess Harman’s single-factor test for non-response biases. The partial least squares (PLS) technique, which is a variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) with SmartPLS 3 software, was used to assess the measurement and structural models (Hair et al., 2017, 2019a). PLS-SEM was used because it helped to estimate and test a research model from a prediction perspective (Hair et al., 2019a).

4. Results

4.1 Measurement model

Hair et al. (2017) suggested that researchers should be cautious in reporting model fit in PLS-SEM. Notwithstanding, the goodness of fit of the model was evaluated using PLS-SEM. The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) value was estimated at 0.067. The SEM literature recommends SRMR value below 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) is a good fit for the data. The exact fit criteria for d-ULS (1.350) and d-G (0.522) values indicate a good fit since the values exceed the conventional threshold of 0.05 (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015; Ringle et al., 2015). Also, the normal fix index value of 0.811 was reported, which was close to the acceptable value of 0.90, confirming a good fit (Ringle et al., 2015).

The reliability and validity of the constructs were examined (Hair et al., 2018). As depicted in Table 1, the outcomes show the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (Hair et al., 2018) and Dijkstra’s Rho_A (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015b) exceed the threshold of at least 0.70. Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was greater than 0.50, indicating that each construct explained more than 50% of the variance in its items (Sarstedt et al., 2016; Hair et al., 2018). These outcomes confirm the reliability and validity of this study.

The discriminant validity was also assessed using cross-loading indicators, the Fornell–Lacker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). The factor loadings for each item exceeded the threshold of 0.70 (see Table 2), which confirmed all indicators demonstrated an adequate level of validity (Hair et al., 2020). Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion required that the square root of the AVE for each construct should be greater than 0.5 in its correlations with other constructs. Table 2 shows that the values for Fornell and Larcker criterion indicate an acceptable level of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2015). In support of the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the HTMT criterion is also less than 0.90, as Henseler et al. (2015) suggested, which indicates that discriminant validity for this study is adequate since the HTMT values are significantly less than the threshold. (Henseler et al., 2015).

4.2 Structural model assessment

Subsequent to assessing the measurement model, model collinearity, predictive accuracy of the dependent variables and significance of the path coefficient were analysed based on the bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 samples (Hair et al., 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2016). The outcomes of the tested hypotheses and statistical significance values of the standardised path coefficients (Hair et al., 2017, 2019b) are shown in Figure 2 and Table 3. Furthermore, a blindfolding analysis was conducted to determine the predictive accuracy and applicability of the model (Hair et al., 2019a). The estimated R² values of the endogenous constructs, abusive supervision, EBLM and proactive employee work behaviour, were 0.405, 0.362 and 0.198, respectively. Thus, the outcomes indicated the model’s significant explanatory accuracy (p < 0.05).

The estimates show that OMBLM related positively and significantly to owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour (β = 0.636, t = 24.458, p = 0.000). Thus, confirming H1. Owner-manager abusive supervision also positively and significantly predicted EBLM (β = 0.539, t = 18.964, p = 0.000) and employee PWB (β = 0.258, t = 5.442, p = 0.000). Thus, these outcomes, respectively, confirm H2 and H3. Furthermore, a relational attachment has a significant and positive consequence on how abusive supervision relates to EBLM (β = 0.149, t = 4.302, p = 0.000), thus confirming H4a. However, its effect on how owner-manager abusive supervision relates to employee PWB was insignificant (β = 0.039, t = 0.829, p = 0.407), rejecting H4b accordingly.

Further scrutiny of the data confirmed the mediating effect of owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour in the relationship between OMBLM and PWB (β = 0.343, t = 13.04, p = 0.000) and indirect effects (β = 0.343, t = 13.04, p = 0.000) were both significant and positive, therefore confirming a partial mediation (H5a). Similarly, the outcome demonstrates a partial mediation effect of owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour in the relationship between OMBLM and EBLM as both the direct (β = 0.164, t = 5.175, p = 0.000) and indirect effect (β = 0.164, t = 5.175, p = 0.000) were positive and significant. Thus, H5b was supported.

5. Discussions

This study examined how owner-manager BLM relates to owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour. It also assessed the impact of owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour on employee BLM and PWB. Based on relevant literature, seven hypotheses were developed and tested. Six of the hypotheses were confirmed.

The results revealed that OMBLM has a positive and significant effect on abusive supervision behaviour, which is congruent with the related empirical studies (Mawritz et al., 2017; Greenbaum et al., 2012). This result suggests that the BLM can activate abusive supervision since the owner-managers are likelier to employ intimidation, threats and micromanagement to ensure that employees meet performance standards. Thus, the perceived reality of owner-managers’ abusive supervisory behaviour is predicated on their desire to ensure the financial well-being of their enterprises. This study shows that the relationship between the two constructs is significant and positive. Hence, the focus of owner-managers on the bottom line is not necessarily indicative of abusive behaviour but can contribute to it depending on the approach the owner-manager takes in achieving the bottom line.

Furthermore, the study evaluated the predictive role of owner-manager abusive supervision attitudes on EBLM and proactive employee work behaviour. The findings show that owner-manager abusive supervision positively and significantly led to EBLM. This outcome is consistent with other studies (Agarwal, 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Zhao and Guo, 2019; Rousseau and Aubé, 2018). This result suggests that when employees perceive owner-managers as abusive, they tend to respond by focusing on achieving only the financial targets and discounting other essential factors that would lead to the wellness of the enterprise. Thus, because of the perceived abusive behaviour of the owner-manager, employees may develop a BLM by focusing solely on generating the needed profit. This situation may result in co-worker undermining and unethical behaviours to achieve the bottom line and may create an unnecessary workplace competitive climate.

While some studies have established that abusive supervision can lead to negative employee outcomes (Mackey et al., 2017; Lyu et al., 2016), others acknowledged its bright side (Callahan, 2004; Zhang and Liu, 2018). This study affirms the positive and significant predictive influence of abusive supervision behaviours on employee PWB. The outcome aligns with earlier empirical evidence that found positive outcomes of abusive supervision (Usman et al., 2021; Hameed et al., 2021; Zhang and Liu, 2018). This finding indicates that owner-managers enhance employee proactivity through perceived abusive supervision. The result suggests that, based on trait activation and social learning theories, employees may respond to the abusive supervision of owner-managers by taking measures to become more engaged and motivated, working harder to prove their capabilities to avoid the negative effect of the abusive behaviours of the owner-managers. In addition, owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour can cause employee stress and anxiety (Mawritz et al., 2014), which can drive employees to take the initiative or proactive approaches to work resulting in achieving the bottom line.

Finally, this study found that relational attachment significantly and positively moderates the relationship between owner-managers abusive supervision and EBLM. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Umans et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Ruppel and Curran, 2012; Baptist, 2012). This finding suggests that when employees feel relationally attached to the owner-managers, it reduces the negative effect of an abusive supervision employee’s ability to achieve the bottom line. Thus, these results demonstrate that the quality of relational attachment would drive employees to work towards achieving the bottom line. Furthermore, this indicates that employees who feel they have strong relationships with owner-managers would prefer to stay and work towards achieving the bottom line rather than quitting their jobs or reacting abusively, especially in the research context. Thus, the result demonstrates that when employees feel valued through trust, respect and shared experience, they are more likely to be committed and motivated to achieve the enterprise's bottom line. Similarly, employees with strong attachments to their owner-managers can demonstrate resilience by coping with the abusive behaviour and eventually achieving the enterprise's bottom line.

However, this study found the moderating effect of relational attachment on the relationship between owner-managers’ abusive supervision and PWB positive but insignificant, rejecting the proposition that relational attachment will positively and significantly influence the abusive supervision and employee PWB relationship. The positive effect suggests that employees with strong relational bonds with their owner-managers may engage in PWB even if their owner-managers adopt abusive supervisor behaviours. This result is consistent with studies like those of Umans et al. (2021) and Li et al. (2021). Thus, although owner-managers might exhibit abusive behaviours, the employee-manager relationship will lessen the effect of those behaviours on the employees, which will drive employees to be proactive with their work. The insignificant effect of relational attachment suggests that other factors such as supportive supervisors, self-efficacy and job complexity may influence owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour and employee PWB relationship rather than their relationship with the owner-managers. Therefore, this result indicates that whereas employees are willing to focus on the bottom line, they decline to make extra efforts to assume PWB, notwithstanding having a high relational attachment to the owner-manager or the enterprise.

5.1 Theoretical and practical implications

This study has theoretical and managerial implications. Theoretically, the study extends research on BLM by investigating a mechanism by which BLM can lead to positive employee behavioural outcomes. As an emerging concept, few studies have investigated how managers’ BLM can result in EBLM in MSMEs (Quade et al., 2020). Consequently, this research enhances the literature by testing the abusive supervision construct as a link between OMBLM, EBLM and PWB. In addition, previous studies on BLM were grounded on single theoretical perspectives such as social learning theory (Zhang et al., 2021), social information processing theory (Babaola et al., 2020), self-regulation theory (Mawritz et al., 2017) and social-cognitive theory (Quade, 2021; Greenbaum et al., 2012). The present study used an integrated theoretical approach by combining trait activation theory and social learning theory in a single study to enrich the literature on BLM, especially within the context of developing countries. This would serve as foundational work for researchers to further investigate the integrated theoretical approach in providing greater insight into BLM conceptualisation. In addition, two essential constructs, employee PWB and EBLM, were examined simultaneously.

These findings also provide insightful managerial implications. First, managers must communicate the bottom line without employees perceiving them as abusive. This assertion dictates that managers develop and enhance their communication skills and improve their emotional intelligence when communicating the bottom line. Thus, owner-managers can achieve the bottom line through collaborative approaches such as setting realistic goals, developing creative solutions and rewarding good performance. This would enable managers to balance their financial goals, employee needs and well-being. Second, the moderating result of relational attachment highlights the importance of building positive relationships between employees and owner-managers in achieving the bottom line. Therefore, managers should focus on enhancing collaborative and supportive work approaches. However, the study revealed that other factors are essential in enhancing the relationship between abusive supervision and employee PWBs. Hence, managers seeking to nurture and develop employee work behaviours may consider adopting other factors such as supportive organisational culture, resilience and mindfulness programmes.

5.2 Limitations and future research

This study had a few limitations. First, the research was conducted from a single developing country perspective, where sociocultural differences and increasing unemployment may influence employees’ responses towards the BLM and the abusive supervision of owner-managers. This places constraints on generalising the outcomes of this study. The academic scholarship would benefit from outcomes of future studies that could be conducted from multiple country perspectives with varying socio-cultural and economic configurations.

Second, the data for this study was collected using an online questionnaire based on cross-sectional self-reported responses. This approach limits the ability of employees without smartphones or who cannot read or write to partake in the study, discounting the implication of BLM for specific Ghanaian economy sectors and limiting the degree of causal interpretations. Future studies may concentrate on one particular industry or sector and employ other data collection techniques to include employees who are not using smartphones, particularly micro and small enterprises, and generate data from owner-managers perspectives.

Third, the relationship between owner-managers’ BLM and abusive supervision can be influenced by age, gender, educational background, leadership style and firm size. These factors were not controlled for in this study. Future studies may control for such factors when testing the study propositions. In addition, the influence of gender and education level on how OMBLM affects endogenous variables, especially owner-manager abusive behaviour, should be an intriguing area for further investigation, drawing on lessons from Marconatto et al. (2021) and theories such as gender schema theory (Bem, 1981). For instance, whether male or female owner-managers with BLM are more prone to adopt abusive supervisory behaviour would significantly contribute to the MSMEs literature.

5.3 Conclusion

This study examined the predictive role of owner-manager BLM on their abusive supervision behaviours among MSMEs in Ghana. The study also ascertained the effect of owner-manager abusive supervision behaviour on employee BLM and PWB. By drawing on trait activation and social learning theories, the study provides evidence that the owner-manager is a significant predictor of owner-manager abusive supervision behaviours within the research context. Furthermore, the study’s result shows that abusive supervision behaviour of owner-managers positively and significantly contributes to employee bottom-line mindset and PWB. In addition, the study emphasised the significant moderating role of relational attachment, suggesting a strong relationship between owner-managers and employees can reduce the negative effect of abusive behaviour on employee EBLM. However, it must be noted that although relational attachment is essential, it is insignificant to enhance the positive relationship between owner-manager abusive supervision and employee PWB. Thus, this study’s results highlight the essence of focusing on the bottom line while promoting a positive work climate to balance the bottom line, employee well-being, and other enterprise outcomes. Therefore, the study sets the tone for further studies into achieving the balance between owner-manager BLM and positive employee and organisational outcomes among MSMEs in emerging economies.

Figures

Figure 1.

The proposed research framework

Figure 2.

A path model of the relationship between the key constructs

Table 1.

Construct reliability and validity

Constructs	Indicators	Loading	Cronbach’s alpha	Rho_A	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
OMBLM			0.865	0.883	0.907	0.711
	OMBLM1	0.769
	OMBLM2	0.871
	OMBLM3	0.872
	OMBLM4	0.856
OMASB			0.901	0.904	0.931	0.772
	OMASB1	0.897
	OMASB3	0.871
	OMASB4	0.850
	OMASB5	0.895
EBLM			0.792	0.823	0.860	0.607
	EBLM1	0.711
	EBLM2	0.830
	EBLM4	0.787
	EBML3	0.783
PWB			0.701	0.720	0.829	0.619
	ENA2	0.715
	REF1	0.827
	REF2	0.814
RA			0.798	0.796	0.868	0.623
	RA1	0.856
	RA2	0.859
	RA3	0.840
	RA4	0.880

Notes:

OMASB = owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour; OMBLM = owner-manager bottom-line mentality; EBLM = employee bottom-line mentality; PWB = proactive work behaviour; RA = relational attachment

Source: Field data (2022)

Table 2.

Discriminant validity

Constructs	OMBSB	EBLM	PWB	OMBLM
Fornell–Larcker Criterion
OMBSB	0.878
EBLM	0.581	0.779
PWB	0.329	0.219	0.787
OMBLM	0.636	0.682	0.244	0.843
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio
EBLM	0.651
PWB	0.411	0.303
RA	0.243	0.210	0.461
OMBLM	0.706	0.807	0.306

Notes:

OMASB = owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour; OMBLM = owner-manager bottom-line mentality; EBLM = employee bottom-line mentality; PWB = proactive work behaviour; RA = relational attachment

Source: Field data (2022)

Table 3.

The model path coefficients from the hypotheses testing

Path	Original sample (O)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T	p	Decision
OMBLM → OMASB	0.636	0.026	24.458	0.000	H1 supported
OMASB → EBLM	0.539	0.028	18.964	0.000	H2 supported
OMASB → PWB	0.258	0.047	5.442	0.000	H3 supported
RA * OMASB → EBLM	0.149	0.035	4.302	0.000	H4a supported
RA * OMASB → PWB	0.039	0.047	0.829	0.407	H4b not supported
Direct effect
OMBLM → EBLM	0.343	0.026	13.038	0.000	H5a supported
OMBLM → PWB	0.164	0.032	5.175	0.000	H5b supported
Indirect effect
OMBLM → OMSAB → EBLM	0.343	0.026	13.038	0.000	H5a supported
OMBLM → OMASB → PWB	0.164	0.032	5.175	0.000	H5b supported

Notes:

OMASB = owner-manager abusive supervisory behaviour; OMBLM = owner-manager bottom-line mentality; EBLM = employee bottom-line mentality; PWB = proactive work behaviour; RA= relational attachment

Source: Field data (2022)

Table A1.

Measures

Abusive supervision (Source: Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007)
AS1		The owner-manager ridicules me
AS2		The owner-manager makes negative comments about me in front of others
AS3		The owner-manager reminds me of my past mistakes and failures
AS4		The owner-manager does not give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort
AS5		The owner-manager blames me for his or her own mistakes
Relational attachment (Source: Ehrhardt and Ragins, 2019)
		When thinking about my relationships with others at work, …
RA1		… I feel close to them
RA2		… I feel attached to them
RA3		… I feel a close bond with them
RA4		… I feel committed to them
RA5		… I feel a sense of oneness with them
RA6		… I feel like I belong with them
Bottom-line mentality (Source: Greenbaum et al., 2012)
Employee BLM	EBLM1	At work, I am solely concerned about meeting my target
	EBLM2	At work, I only care about the business
	EBLM3	At work, I treat the target as more important than anything else
	EBLM4	I care more about my task than the well-being of other employees
Owner-manager BLM	OMBLM1	At work, the owner-manager is solely concerned about meeting the bottom line
	OMBLM2	The owner-manager only cares about the business
	OMBLM3	The owner-manager treats making money or profit for the business as more important than anything else
	OMBLM4	The owner-manager cares more about profits or the task than the well-being of other employees
Proactive work behaviour (Source: Griffin et al., 2007; Bindl et al., 2012)
Envisioning		Over the last month, I spent much time and effort …
	EVN1	… thinking about ways to improve services to customers
	EVN2	… thinking about ways to save costs or increase efficiency at work
	EVN3	… thinking about how to better perform my tasks
Planning	PLA1	… going through different scenarios in my head about how to best bring about a work change
	PLA2	… getting myself into the right mood before trying to make a change or put forward a suggestion
	PLA3	… thinking about a change-related situation from different angles before deciding how to act
Reflecting	REF1	… monitoring the effects of my change-related behaviour
	REF2	… seeking feedback from others about the effects of my change-related actions
	REF3	… learning for the future from the change-related actions I engaged in
Enacting	ENA1	… to make changes to the way I perform my main tasks
	ENA2	… to initiate better ways of doing my core tasks
	ENA3	… to create ideas to improve the way in which I carry out my job