Search results

One particular egregious type of workplace mistreatment is supervisor abuse, which has received extensive attention due to its heavy cost to organizations including up to 23 billion dollars in annual loss resulting from increases in absenteeism, health care costs, and productivity loss. Employees attribute causes to abusive supervision, and these attributions impact subsequent reactions. In some cases, employees may feel that abusive supervision is justified, leading to the reaction of Schadenfreude, or pleasure in another’s pain. In this chapter, we discuss antecedents to Schadenfreude, its role in observed mistreatment, and propose a conceptual model based on attribution theory.

The purpose of this paper is to examine bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance to vicarious abusive supervision by supervisor-directed attribution. Furthermore, this study developed a moderated–mediation model to explore how LMX between bystander and his/her supervisor moderate the relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and the supervisor-directed attribution, which subsequently influences bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance.

The paper tested the model using a sample of 336 workers using a two-wave survey. A moderated–mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrapping procedure to test the first stage moderated–mediation model in this study.

The results showed that LMX (between bystander and his/her supervisor) weakens the indirect relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance by bystanders’ supervisor-directed attribution.

Leadership training programs should be conducted to caution supervisors in terms of the deleterious consequences of vicarious abusive supervision. Organizations also should plan perception and communication training courses for leaders; such training would reduce bystanders’ responsibility attribution to them by providing timely explanations and communication. Furthermore, organizations should monitor supervisors by managers’ performance appraisal and formulate rules to punish abusive managers.

These results clarify the nature and consequences of LMX (dyadic relationships of bystanders–supervisor) for bystanders’ attribution process, and explain underlying attributional perceptions and reactions to vicarious abusive supervision. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of when and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance.

This two‐part research project examines self‐serving attributions by employees in reaction to supervisor's negative interpersonal behaviors in the workplace. The first study (N = 289) examined internal and external attributions in reaction to negative supervisor's behaviors compared to positive behaviors, and the moderating effect of organizational empowerment. The respondents attributed positive behaviors internally and negative behaviors externally. However, empowerment did not affect the attributions. The second study (N = 252,) examined the relationship of attributions of blame to the victim in relation to being the victim of negative behaviors as compared to being the perpetrator. Again, negative supervisor's behaviors were related to attribution of blame to factors external to the victim. However, the employee's own negative behaviors were positively related to attribution of blame to the victim.

While much research shows that abusive supervision reduces employee performance, the purpose of this study is to reverse the lens to question how and under what circumstances abusive supervision leads to enhanced employee performance. The authors argue that the linkages between abusive supervision and employee performance occurs via performance-promotion attributions and that employee levels of dispositional forgiveness alter the relationship between abusive supervision and employee interpretations of abuse, such that more forgiving individuals interpret abuse as more benign behavior designed to help them perform better (i.e. are performance promoting).

In a three-wave field survey of 318 employees matched with 89 supervisors, employees completed measures of dispositional forgiveness (Time 1) abusive supervision (Time 1), and performance-promotion attributions of abusive supervision's motives (Time 2). Supervisors rated the job performance of their employees (Time 3). Multilevel structural equation modeling was employed to test a multilevel moderated mediation model.

The findings indicate abusive supervision predicts diminished employee performance only when employees are low in dispositional forgiveness, explained by lowered performance-promotion attributions for abusive supervision.

This study is the first to explore the mechanism (i.e. attribution of abusive supervision's motives to be performance-promoting) and the condition (i.e. employee's high forgiveness) under which abusive supervision may be performance enhancing. It extends the research of abusive supervision on employees' constructive reactions, as well as the effect of dispositional forgiveness on how it reframes employees' attributions of workplace mistreatment.

Departing from previous research which shows that abusive supervision, as a salient job demand, induces detrimental employee outcomes, this study examines how to create constructive consequences of abusive supervision. To do so, the authors identify the boundary conditions to change the negative effect of supervisory abuse on employees’ work engagement in a positive direction. The authors examine the interactive moderating effect of a personal resource (i.e. positive causal attribution of abusive supervision) and a job resource (i.e. workplace friendship) on the relationship between abusive supervision and work engagement.

The authors used data from a two-wave survey of 697 full-time workers with a time interval of one month and conducted three-way interaction analyses to test their hypothesized model.

Abusive supervision increases employees’ work engagement when they make a positive causal attribution of abusive supervision (i.e. interpreting their abusive supervisor’s motives as promoting their job performance, rather than as intentionally harming them) and have favorable workplace friends.

The authors study offers a novel picture of abusive supervision by revealing that supervisory abuse can enhance employees’ work engagement when it is coupled with proper personal and job resources. In addition, this study highlights that in order to identify constructive effects of abusive supervision, it is critical to delve into the interaction between resources from these two domains to deal with abusive supervision.

One organizational phenomenon in which emotions undoubtedly emerge is that of abusive supervision. To date, however, very little research has examined emotional responses associated with perceptions of abuse by supervisors. If subordinates believe that responsibility for abuse does not fall on the abusive supervisors but on the organization itself, they might think the abuse is uncontrollable or unintentional on the part of the supervisors. This attribution shift may result in feelings of sympathy toward the supervisor. In this chapter, we suggest that such responses are likely to occur when subordinates are under no-escape conditions. This circumstance can lead subordinates to forgive their supervisor and retaliate against their organization.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether employees’ personalities are associated with their perceptions of abusive supervision.

In total, 756 working adults provided data. Subjects’ began by taking personality assessments and then received a performance evaluation via a video role-play. Subjects then provided their perceptions of how abusive the supervisor was. The data were analyzed with regression analysis.

The results illustrated that respondents’ hostile attribution styles, negative affectivity, trait anger, and entitlement were positively and significantly associated with perceptions of abusive supervision.

The results imply that judgments of supervisory abuse and interventions to ameliorate the negative consequences associated with abusive supervision should consider subordinates’ characteristics.

This study controlled supervisor behavior via a video vignette to assess how multiple subordinates’ perceive the same supervisor behavior. This study contributes to a more complete understanding of how personality is associated with perceptions of abusive supervision.

Drawing on attribution theory, this study aims to examine how and when abusive supervision affects insubordination, focusing on employees’ attribution bias related to leader gender.

Two mixed-method studies were used to test the proposed research framework. Study 1 adopted a 2 (abusive supervision: low vs high) by 2 (leader gender: male vs female) by employee gender-leadership bias quasi-experiment. A sample of 173 US F&B employees completed Study 1. In Study 2, 116 hospitality employees responded to two-wave, time-lagged surveys. They answered questions on abusive supervision and gender-leadership bias in Survey 1. Two weeks later, they reported negative external attribution (embodied in injury initiation) and insubordination.

Hayes’ PROCESS macro results verified a three-way moderated mediation. The three-way interaction among abusive supervision, leader gender and gender-leadership bias affects external attribution, increasing insubordination. Employees with high leader–gender bias working under female leaders make more external attribution and engage in subsequent insubordination in the presence of abusive supervision.

This study is one of the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, that examines the mediating role of external attribution of abusive supervision. Second, this research explains the gender glass ceiling by examining employees’ attribution bias against female leaders.

This research seeks to examine the mitigating effect of religiosity on the relationship between abusive supervision and unethical behavior in employees, with moral disengagement serving as a mediating factor. Drawing on social cognitive theory, the study proposes an overarching moderated mediation framework to analyze this complex dynamic.

The testing of the model was based on hierarchical data obtained from 70 work units in services sector. Within this framework, 70 supervisors evaluated the unethical conduct of employees, while 700 employees assessed the abusive supervision they experienced and reported on their own moral disengagement and religiosity. For the analysis of both the measurement and the hypothesized models, multilevel modeling techniques in the Mplus software were utilized.

The study's findings indicate a direct positive link between abusive supervision and employees' unethical behavior, with moral disengagement mediating this relationship. Furthermore, the research discovered that abusive supervision leads to unethical behavior in employees through moral disengagement only in instances where their religiosity is low.

This research delves deeper by elucidating the role of moral disengagement in the dynamic between abusive supervision and unethical behavior. Diverging from prior research, this study uniquely highlights the moderating role of religiosity, showing its potential to weaken the impact of abusive supervision on unethical behavior in employees through moral disengagement.

This paper aims to offer a new leadership perspective based on the premise that leader effectiveness depends on the context in which leadership behaviors are enacted.

Literature in the areas of abusive supervision and leadership were reviewed. Using social learning and attribution theories, this study develops propositions regarding the role of perceived abusive supervision in high vs low-intensity organizations.

In this theoretical account, this paper distinguishes between low and high-intensity work organizational contexts articulating a rationale for conditions appropriate for directive leadership. This paper posits that while directive leadership will be more prevalent in high-intensity contexts, it will be specifically targeted toward poor performers, those with personality characteristics that are tied to poor performance and those engaging in deviant behaviors. This study proposes that outcomes of directive leadership will depend on how it aligns with organizational norms and culture and the causality attributed to such behaviors.

Recent leadership theories focus on nurturing and providing support to followers. This paper posits that such theories are suited to low-intensity organizations. This study offers a counterintuitive perspective in proposing that directive leadership which involves inducing stress, will lead to better outcomes in high-intensity organizational contexts. This paper offers testable propositions and avenues for future research on directive leadership in high-intensity organizational contexts.

Based on the premise that leadership is context-dependent, this study proposes that directive leadership is best suited in high-intensity organizational contexts, which is a novel proposal. Even within these high-intensity contexts, such leadership, this paper proposes will be targeted toward poor performers and employees with characteristics that are tied to poor performance and violation of organizational norms.

Examination of the role of directive leadership in high intensity, clan culture organizations may facilitate understanding that effective leadership styles may differ depending upon the organization context.

Based on the premise that leadership is context-dependent, this study presents a novel proposal that directive leadership is most suited to high-intensity organizational contexts. Even within these high-intensity contexts, such leadership, this paper posits will be targeted toward poor performers and employees with personality characteristics associated with poor and deviant performance.