MARK J. MARTINKO1*, PAUL HARVEY2, JEREMY R. BREES3
AND JEREMY MACKEY4
1UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia2Peter T. Paul School of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of New Hampshire,Durham, New Hampshire, U.S.A.3Kania School of Management, University of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.4College of Business, Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
The topic of abusive supervision has generated substantial research over the past two decades. Our search of thePsychInfo and ProQuest databases revealed that 82 studies have been published on abusive supervision since theyear 2000. Although a review of abusive supervision research was published by Tepper in 2007, at least 62 abusivesupervision studies have been published since then. Thus, one purpose of this paper was to provide an updatedreview of abusive supervision research that incorporates recent contributions.Another reason for conducting this review is that this group of studies has demonstrated that there are significant
relationships between the construct of abusive supervision and important organizational outcome variables such asaggression (Burton & Hoobler, 2011), organizational citizenship (Rafferty & Restubog, 2011), subordinateperformance (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011), and workplace deviance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Clearly, theseoutcomes are related to the success and survival of organizations as well as the health and well-being of theiremployees. Thus, this body of research is of considerable interest to both and practitioners and organizationalresearchers.Finally, from a values and ethics perspective, the implication that employees are being abused frequently is
disturbing. As the Tepper (2007) review indicated, legislative bodies are contemplating legislation, and some havenow passed laws regarding abusive work behaviors. From a societal perspective, it is important that all partiesaffected by abusive behaviors and legislation be well-informed so that legislation and its implementation are basedon unbiased and objective information. As researchers, we have the responsibility for providing this information.We begin with a brief discussion of Tepper’s (2007) review, identifying contributions as well as issues that appear
problematic. We then summarize the studies included in Tepper’s review and those that have been published sincethen with special consideration toward the issues that Tepper identified in his earlier review as well as the issues that
*Correspondence to: Mark J. Martinko, UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, S120–S137 (2013)Published online 7 August 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1888
The
IRIO
PAnnualR
eviewIssue
emerge as the result of our review. Next, we propose a constructive revision of the Tepper model, which addressessome of the limitations of the prior model and provides suggestions regarding the causal paths and variables thathave the potential to explain significant variance in the outcomes associated with abusive supervision. We end withsuggestions for future research.
Abusive Supervision Research (2000–2007)
Before conducting our review of the recent research, we examined Tepper’s (2007) review and the articles coveredin his summary to make sure we understood his perspective. Although we agreed with many of his observations andrecommendations, we also had some concerns about this body of research. These concerns centered around sixissues. First, as noted by Tepper (2007), a majority of the data in these early studies was from single sources (usuallythe subordinate), and almost all of the research designs were cross-sectional. As a result, we are concerned thatstrong causal inferences are being made despite the limitations of these designs.Second, we are concerned that researchers appear to be assuming that commonly used abusive supervision
measures are objective and reliable measures of abusive supervisory behaviors. Thus, for example, whendiscussing the results of his research on abusive supervision, Tepper (2000, p. 186) stated “subordinates whosesupervisors were more abusive reported higher turnover, less favorable attitudes toward job, life, and organi-zation.” This would not be a problem if the statement said “subordinates whose supervisors were perceived tobe more abusive” as opposed to “were more abusive,” as the Tepper scale measures perceptions rather thanbehaviors. Third, we are concerned by the lack of validation of abusive supervision measures. We couldnot find any objective measure of abusive behavior that was related to Tepper’s (2000) commonly usedperceptual measure.Fourth, we are also concerned that researchers are ignoring plausible theoretical alternatives to the origins of
perceptions of abusive supervision such as reverse causation (e.g., poor performance causes rather than is the resultof abusive behavior). Tepper (2007) also expressed this concern in his review, but we nevertheless want to highlightan issue we see as particularly critical and pervasive.Fifth, the frequently cited claim that corporations lose $23.8 billion annually because of abusive supervision
is also concerning. The citation Tepper (2007) gives for this estimate is an article by Tepper, Duffy, Henle,and Lambert (2006). When examining the Tepper et al. (2006) article, we found that their research does notdirectly investigate this claim but cites two works on bullying (Namie & Namie, 2000; Sheehan, McCarthy,Barker, & Henderson, 2001) to support the claim. This is somewhat puzzling as Tepper (2007) differentiatedabusive supervision from bullying in his review. When we investigated these sources, we did not find a directconnection to abusive supervision and found the assumptions in these source papers regarding the costs ofbullying questionable.Finally, the Tepper (2007) model, which was based on existing research available at the time, appears due for a
revision. More recent research suggests, directly and indirectly, that subordinates’ individual differences can affecttheir perceptions of abuse and their reactions to these perceptions in ways that were not considered in the earlierstudies. In particular, we argue that there is some evidence to suggest that feedback loops linking subordinateperformance and behaviors to abusive supervisory behavior might exist. As we will discuss, this argument couldhave important implications for future theorizing.
Abusive Supervision Research (2008–2012)
In this section, we examine research conducted since the Tepper (2007) review. A search of empirical abusivesupervision studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2008 and 2012 identified 62 new studies. This numberis notable as it suggests a steep increase in the volume of research since the publication of Tepper’s (2007) review,
which identified 20 articles published in the preceding eight years (2000–2007). This is a significant increase and un-derscores the relevance of our review for a growing community of researchers.At the conclusion of his 2007 review, Tepper identified a number of opportunities for researchers to address
limitations in existing research and move the study of abusive supervision in promising new directions. We beginthis review with an analysis of the extent to which subsequent research has acted on these suggestions. We thenprovide a more comprehensive summary of the findings from this newer body of research grouped by theantecedent, outcome, and moderator (i.e., subordinates’ work context, supervisor and subordinate characteristics,and supervisor and subordinate behaviors) categories identified in Tepper’s (2007) emergent model. We then revisitthe issues identified in the previous section to determine if they are still relevant.
Progress in areas identified in the Tepper (2007) review
Cross-cultural issuesAt the time of his 2007 review, Tepper noted that very little research on abusive supervision had taken place outsideof the United States. In addition to his observation that cultural factors such as power distance and masculinity mightinfluence reactions to abusive supervision, he argued that the equivalence of commonly used measures of abuseshould be tested across cultures. Our review suggests that there has been some progress on the former issue but littleon the latter.By our count, there have been 21 abusive supervision studies using non-U.S. samples since Tepper’s (2007) call
for such research. These include samples from Australia (Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010),Canada (Barling, Christie, & Turner, 2008), China (Jian, Kwan, Qiu, Liu, & Kim, 2012; Li, Ling, & Liu, 2009;Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013; Liu, Kwan, Wu, & Wu, 2010; Ma & Wang, 2011; Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012;Wei & Si, 2011; Wu, Liu, & Liu, 2009; Xiaqi, Kun, Chongsen, & Sufang, 2012; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao,2012), the Philippines (Kiazad et al., 2010; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011; Kiewitz et al., 2012; Rafferty, Restubog,& Jimmieson, 2010; Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011), South Korea (Kernan, Watson, Chen, & Kim, 2011),and Taiwan (Hu, 2012; Hu, Wu, &Wang, 2011; Wu, 2008). Although the cultures represented in these studies differfrom the those of the United States on a number of cultural dimensions that Tepper identified as relevant (e.g., powerdistance and collectivism; Hofstede, 2001), many authors did not incorporate cultural differences in their theorydevelopment or study designs.In many of the studies that utilized non-U.S. samples (e.g., Aryee, Sun, Chen, & Debrah, 2008; Hobman,
Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009; Hu, 2012; Kiazad et al., 2010; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011; Rafferty et al.,2010; Wei & Si, 2011; Xu et al., 2012), the relationships hypothesized and tested are consistent with what wouldlikely be, or has been, hypothesized and tested in Western contexts. This is not a flaw of these studies but indicatesthat there is still a great deal to be learned about how the nomological network of abusive supervision differs acrosscultures. An interesting finding was that some of these studies did note the potential influence of cultural differencesin their introductions and discussions but did not incorporate these differences into their conceptual development orstudy designs (e.g., Jian et al., 2012; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011).Among those studies that did investigate the impact of cultural influences, the most frequently examined cultural
variable was power distance. Lian, Ferris, and Brown (2012a) observed that subordinates with higher power distanceorientations were less likely to perceive abusive behavior as unfair and were more likely to model their own behaviorafter the abusive supervisors’. Similarly, Wang et al. (2012) found that high power distance employees reported lessinteractional injustice in response to perceived abuse. Lin et al. (2013) found further evidence that high powerdistance subordinates respond less negatively to abuse; they observed that the relationships between perceptionsof abusive supervision and the outcomes of psychological health and job satisfaction were weaker for high powerdistance subordinates than for low power distance employees. In a similar vein, Liu et al. (2010) found thatsubordinates with strong Chinese traditionalism values (i.e., respect for authority, fatalism, and preference for male
dominance) were less likely to engage in vengeful supervisor-directed acts of deviance in response to perceptions ofabusive supervision than those with low traditionalism values.Perhaps the most comprehensive cross-cultural study we identified was the investigation of Kernan et al. (2011) of
three cultural variables (power distance, achievement orientation, and benevolence) across two samples (U.S. andKorean). They found that achievement orientation and benevolence values moderated relationships between abusivesupervision ratings and several outcome variables (job satisfaction, job involvement, well-being, and perceivedorganizational support). Their findings generally showed that subordinates with strong benevolence and achievementvalues were more negatively affected by supervisory behaviors that they perceived as abusive. We find it interestingthat, given the findings ofWang et al. (2012) and Lin et al. (2013), they did not observe any moderating effect for powerdistance. Kiazad et al. (2010) also examined two cultures (Philippines and Australia) in their study showing the impactof Machiavellian management styles on perceptions of abusive supervision. As with Kernan et al. (2011), no significantbetween-country findings were hypothesized or observed.Regarding Tepper’s (2007) call for tests of measure stability across cultures, the study of Kernan et al. (2011)
examined items from Tepper’s (2000) and Einarsen and Hoel’s (2001) abuse scales and observed stronger factorloadings for more items in the U.S. sample than in the Korean sample. Hu et al. (2011) examined the facturestructure of Tepper’s (2000) scale and found that the items loaded onto a single factor in a Chinese sample. An interest-ing finding was that Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found support for a two-factor representation (passive-aggressive andactive-aggressive) when reanalyzing the U.S. data that Tepper (2000) used in his scale development. This might suggestevidence of cultural variations in response patterns, but this possibility was not examined in the Hu et al. (2011) study.In the majority of cross-cultural studies, the equivalence of the abuse measure was not tested. More frequently,
authors performed basic confirmatory factor analyses to provide evidence of discriminant validity between abusivesupervision and the other measured constructs. These typically involved comparing the measurement model withalternative models in which items were forced to load onto fewer factors than were contained in the measurementmodel. Not surprisingly, the measurement model showed better fit than these alternatives in every study. Althoughsuch tests do provide limited evidence of discriminant validity, they tell us very little about whether a measureperforms similarly across cultures.Although we are encouraged by the volume of abusive supervision studies being conducted in non-U.S. cultures,
we believe that the opportunity for future research to investigate the impact of cultural differences on abusivesupervision causes, perceptions, and reactions remains largely untapped. We also believe that such research couldbe facilitated by more concerted efforts to establish the cross-cultural stability of abusive supervision scales.
Sub-dimensions of abusive supervisionTepper (2007) suggested that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisor behaviors might involve a categorizationscheme that is more complex than “abusive” or “not abusive.”He noted that targets of abusemight differentiate betweendifferent types of abusive behavior and that their reactions might be influenced by their categorization of the behavior.As discussed in the previous section, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found some support for this idea with theirobservation that responses to Tepper’s (2000) scale loaded onto two dimensions. It appears, however, that the Mitchelland Ambrose (2007) study is the only published instance where multidimensionality of abusive supervision has beentested or observed. As such, there is still a need for research on this topic.
Attributions for abusive supervisionAbusive supervision differs from related constructs such as supervisor bullying and undermining in that it does notdescribe the intentions or objectives of the supervisor. For this reason, Tepper (2007) argued that measuringsubordinates’ attributions for abusive supervisory behaviors might help to explain differences in their reactions tothe abusive behavior. More specifically, he argued that subordinates might differ in their reactions to abusivebehaviors that are attributed to injurious motives than to behaviors that are attributed to constructive motives.Our review identified two studies that examined these types of attributions for abusive supervisor behaviors. In
their 2011 study, Bowling and Michel tested the moderating impact of attributions on the relationship between
abusive supervision and three outcome variables: employee well-being, supervisor-directed retaliation, andorganization-directed retaliation. The authors found that employees who attributed abusive supervisory behaviorto organizational factors were more likely to engage in acts of organization-targeted deviance. Contrary to theauthors’ predictions, they also found that subordinates who blamed themselves for abusive behavior reacted morepositively to the abuse in terms of their reported well-being than those who did not form self-directed attributionsfor the abuse.A study by Liu, Liao, and Loi (2012) also examined employee attributions for abusive supervision as a moderating
factor. These authors examined how high-level managers’ abusive behaviors impacted mid-level managers’ own abu-sive supervisory behaviors, and the impact of this abuse on the creativity of lower level employees. They found that thestrength of this cascading relationship was influenced by the attributions that mid-level managers formed for theirsupervisors’ behaviors and by the attributions that lower level employees formed for their supervisors’ (i.e., the mid-level managers) behaviors that were perceived as abusive. More specifically, the negative impact on creativity wasstronger when the lower level employees and mid-level managers attributed the abuse to injurious motives versus con-structive, performance-driven motives.
Longitudinal designsAs discussed earlier, Tepper (2007) observed that nearly all of the abusive supervision studies published at the timeof his review utilized cross-sectional study designs. He suggested that longitudinal designs would allow researchersto rule out reverse or reciprocal causation in models of abusive supervision antecedents and outcomes. Our analysissuggests that very little progress has been made in this regard. Only one of the 62 studies we reviewed utilized a truelongitudinal design (Thau & Mitchell, 2010; sample 3) in which independent and dependent variables weremeasured repeatedly over time.As with several articles included in Tepper’s (2007) review, there were a number of studies that used multi-wave
designs in which different study variables were measured at different times. Although the authors of several of thesemulti-wave studies stated that they used a longitudinal design (e.g., Kiazad et al., 2010; Restubog et al., 2011), thesemulti-wave studies use correlational schemes that reduce the validity of causal inferences because they do not allowresearchers to examine the effects of fluctuations in independent variables on dependent variables. In some cases, itis possible that the staggered data collection could even allow for extraneous influences to contaminate the relation-ships being tested (e.g., organizational changes unrelated to supervisors that impact job satisfaction levels betweenthe measurement of abusive supervision as a predictor and job satisfaction as an outcome). As such, it appearsthat the existing body of abusive supervision research is still almost completely bereft of longitudinal studies,limiting the ability to infer causal relationships from this body of work.We also examined whether there was a change in the number of single-source correlational designs. In the review
of the work conducted in 2007 and before, about 70 percent (14 of 20 studies) of the data collected were from singlesources. In the studies conducted after 2008, 53 percent (33 of 62) of the data from the studies were from a singlesource. We judge this as an improvement that helps lessen the threat of single-source method biases.
Supervisor-level factorsBecause most of the published abusive supervision research in 2007 examined outcomes of abusive supervision,Tepper called for an increased focus on characteristics that might predispose some supervisors toward abusivebehaviors. As examples, he suggested narcissism, Theory X orientations, and histories of family violence, amongothers. It would appear that research in this area has increased as our review identified six studies that investigatedsupervisor-level antecedents of abuse.Relating to Tepper’s point regarding familial history, Kiewitz et al. (2012) found that supervisors with a history of
family undermining were prone to abusive behaviors. This was particularly true for supervisors who also reportedlow self-control. More generally, in their 2012 study, Burton, Hoobler, and Scheuer found that supervisors experiencinghigh levels of stress were more likely than others to abuse their subordinates. Consistent with research in stress manage-ment, their study showed that physical exercise helped reduce abusive tendencies among these managers.
Harris, Harvey, and Kacmar (2011) investigated the influence of a specific type of stressor, coworker conflict, andfound that supervisors who reported high levels of conflict with their peers were viewed as more abusive by theirown subordinates. This was particularly true for subordinates with whom a low-quality leader–member exchange(LMX) relationship was shared. Tepper et al. (2011) also incorporated the supervisor–subordinate relationship intotheir study of antecedents of supervisory abuse. They found that supervisors who reported “deep-level dissimilarity”(i.e., the belief that the supervisor and employee differ in terms of deeply held values and attitudes) withsubordinates were likely to engage in conflicts and abusive behaviors with these employees.Two additional studies examined trait-like predictors of abusive supervision, although these studies once again
highlight the importance of recognizing the subjective nature of abuse perceptions. Kiazad et al. (2010) found thatMachiavellian supervisors were perceived to be more abusive by subordinates than non-Machiavellian supervisorsbut that this effect was significantly stronger among subordinates with low organization-based self-esteem.Xiaqi et al. (2012) also found that subordinates of supervisors with high levels of emotional intelligence perceivedlower levels of abusive supervision than subordinates of less emotionally intelligent managers.
Organization-level factorsAs Tepper (2007) noted, there is ample research to suggest that organizational factors such as norms might promoteor attenuate abusive tendencies in supervisors. It appears, however, that this is an aspect of abusive supervision thathas still received little direct study. Our review identified only two studies that examined organizational influenceson abuse. Aryee et al. (2008) examined the impact of abusive supervision perceptions on emotional exhaustion andperformance and found that the impact of abuse was stronger in mechanistic structures (i.e., highly centralizedstructures with predominantly top-down communication) than in organic structures (i.e., less centralized and morecollaborative). Investigating the impact of work climate, Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, and Marinova (2012)found that the relationship between abusive supervision ratings and interpersonal deviance by subordinates wasexacerbated in organizations characterized by hostile work climates. Although these are valuable contributions,we concur with Tepper (2007) that this is an area where additional research would be helpful.
Industry effectsFinally, Tepper (2007) observed that no abusive supervision research had investigated whether the frequency ofabuse varies by industry but noted that related research suggested that industries such as the military and health careappear particularly susceptible to abusive behaviors. He reasoned that these industries are characterized by highwork demands, pressure, risk, and high costs associated with failure and might therefore drive members to engagein aggressive behaviors.Our review suggests that industry effects of abusive supervision remain unstudied. This is unfortunate because
such research could help to identify segments of society where an understanding of abuse is most needed. Thatsaid, we also recognize the inherent difficulty of gathering data sufficient to make industry-wide conclusions onthe prevalence of abuse. Thus, this is an area where collaboration between abusive supervision scholars mightbe warranted.
The nomological network of abusive supervision
Tepper’s (2007) emergent model considered antecedents of abusive supervision, and perceptual and behavioraloutcomes of abuse, as well as the moderating factors of supervisor characteristics and behaviors, subordinatecharacteristics and behaviors, and work context. In this section, we examine abusive supervision research publishedsince 2007 within these categories.
As discussed previously, several new studies identified supervisor-level antecedents to abusive supervision,including stress and conflict levels, deep-level dissimilarity, emotional intelligence, and histories of familyundermining (Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012; Harris et al., 2011; Kiazad et al., 2010; Kiewitz et al., 2012;Tepper et al., 2011; Xiaqi et al., 2012). In addition to these studies, Rafferty et al. (2010) found that supervisor’sperceptions of injustice predicted abusive supervisory behavior, consistent with findings from several studiesincluded in the Tepper (2007) review.Several studies suggest that abusive supervision can serve as an antecedent to additional abusive behaviors. The
aforementioned Liu et al. (2012) study found that team leaders who felt abused by their managers became moreabusive to their own subordinates. Similarly, Mawritz et al. (2012) observed that abusive behavior among high-levelmanagers promoted abusive behavior among the lower level managers who experienced the abuse. More broadly,Harris, Harvey, Harris, and Cast (2013) observed that employees became more abusive to other employees inreaction to abusive supervision, even when they were not direct targets of the abuse.The importance of distinguishing between perceptions of abuse and actual abusive behaviors is underscored by
three studies that suggest subordinates’ characteristics shape their perceptions of abusive supervision. Wu and Hu(2009) found that subordinates with low core self-evaluations perceived higher levels of abusive supervision thanemployees with stronger self-perceptions. Kiazad et al. (2010) observed that subordinates’ perceptions of abusivesupervision were, in part, influenced by their organization-based self-esteem, again suggesting a subjectivecomponent to abuse ratings. A later study by Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, and Douglas (2011) hypothesized and foundthat a significant proportion of subordinates’ perceptions of abuse were related to their hostile attribution styles.Thus, subjects who had tendencies to blame others for their failures also tended to rate their supervisors as abusive.This group of studies is particularly important because it demonstrates that individual differences of subordinatescan account for significant proportions of the variance in their perceptions of abuse.
Moderators of antecedents
As discussed earlier, Burton et al. (2012) found that physical exercise attenuated the stress–abusive supervisionrelationship, and Kiazad et al. (2010) found that organization-based self-efficacy moderated the relationship betweenMachiavellian leadership styles and perceptions of abusive supervision. Additionally, Tepper et al. (2011) found thatsupervisors’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance moderated the relationship between perceived dissimilaritywith subordinates and the supervisors’ abusive behavior toward those subordinates. They found that supervisors weremore abusive toward the subordinates they viewed as most dissimilar to themselves, an effect that was exacerbatedamong dissimilar subordinates rated as poor performers by the supervisor. Similarly, Harris et al. (2011) observed thatsupervisors were more abusive toward subordinates with whom they shared low-quality LMX relationships.
Outcomes of abusive supervision
As was the case with Tepper’s (2007) review, we found that outcomes of perceptions of abusive supervision stillreceive the great majority of research attention. The studies in Tepper’s review focused on attitudes, performance,aggression/deviance, psychological distress, family well-being, and resistance as outcome variables. Our reviewfound that the majority of recent studies continue to focus on this same basic set of outcomes. More specifically,of the 34 studies that examined outcomes of abusive supervision, 17 (50 percent) examined some form aggressionor deviance in response to abuse perceptions, 14 (41 percent) studied psychological distress or well-being asoutcomes, seven (21 percent) examined attitudinal outcomes (primarily job satisfaction), four (12 percent) studiedperformance outcomes, three (9 percent) examined justice outcomes, and three (9 percent) studied family well-being
as outcomes. Although readers may form their own judgments, the argument can be made that research demonstratingthe negative consequences of abusive supervision has reached a saturation point.
Aggression/devianceSeveral studies focused on retaliatory behaviors by subordinates. Bowling and Michel (2011) found that organization-directed retaliation was more likely when the cause of perceived abusive supervision was attributed to the organization.They also found that supervisor-directed attributions for abusive supervision were associated with supervisor-directedcounterproductive behaviors.Burton and Hoobler (2011) also found an association between abuse and retaliatory aggressive behavior, as did
many others (Liu et al., 2010; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2012; Tepper et al., 2009; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone,& Duffy, 2008; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009; Thau & Mitchell, 2010; Wang et al., 2012; Wei & Si,2011). In each of these studies, the authors also observed that subordinate characteristics (e.g., narcissism, locusof control, and intent to turnover) and situational factors (e.g., organizational norms) moderated the abuse–retaliationrelationships.In an interesting variation on the study of the abuse–retaliation relationship Burton, Hoobler, and Kernan (2011)
examined how the research setting impacts subjects’ reports of aggressive responses to abuse. Using a hypotheticalscenario design, the authors found that subjects with high self-esteem reported a strong willingness to engage in(hypothetical) aggressive responses. In a field study replication in which subjects were asked how they actuallydid respond to abusive behaviors, however, low self-esteem subjects reported more aggressive responses. Thesefindings suggest that research design and context, as well as individual difference factors, might influence responsesto abusive supervision measures.As summarized in the antecedent section, several studies have observed that abusive behavior directed at lower
level subordinates or coworkers was an outcome of abusive supervision at higher levels (Harris et al., 2011; Harriset al., 2013; Liu et al., 2012; Mawritz et al., 2012). These abusive behaviors differ from retaliatory behaviors interms of their target, but these authors generally argued that both types of aggression might serve to vent frustrationand restore perceptions of control, albeit at the expense of innocent targets who lack the punitive power ofsupervisors (see also Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Looking at counterproductive or deviant behavior more broadly,Detert, Treviño, Burris, and Andiappan (2007) observed increased food waste among restaurant employees who feltabused by their managers.Finally, two studies looked at aggressive or deviant reactions to predictor variables that were moderated by
abusive supervision perceptions. Biron (2010) found that employees’ perceptions of organizational ethics werenegatively associated with organization-directed deviance but that this relationship was weaker when those employeesviewed their supervisors as abusive. Looking at the positive relationship between social dominance orientation (i.e., afocus on status, power, need fulfillment, and domination of inferior groups) and interpersonal deviance, Shao, Resick,and Hargis (2011) found that the association was stronger when employees believed their supervisors to be abusive. Theauthors reasoned that employees with high social dominance orientations view aggressively dominant behaviors bythose in power as acceptable and are more likely to model such behaviors by their supervisors.
Psychological distress/well-beingAbusive supervision research conducted both before and after Tepper’s (2007) review has consistently shown thatemployees who believe they are victims of abuse experience detrimental psychological consequences. Among themost commonly studied psychological outcomes are stress and emotional exhaustion. Breaux, Perrewé, Hall, Frink,and Hochwarter (2008) examined both of these outcome variables and found that both were most strongly(positively) associated with felt accountability when targets reported high levels of abusive supervision. Relatedly,Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, and Whitten (2012) observed a positive relationship between abuse ratings and burnout.Aryee et al. (2008) and Wu and Hu (2009) also observed relationships between subordinate ratings of abusivesupervision and emotional exhaustion, moderated by situational variables as described in the succeeding paragraphs.
A number of recent studies also investigated more general forms of psychological distress and well-being, includingdepression (Haggard, Robert, & Rose, 2011; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), anxiety (Hobman et al., 2009;Tepper et al., 2007), detachment (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008), psychological health and life satisfaction(Bowling & Michel, 2011; Lin et al., 2013), psychological need fulfillment (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012b), emotionallabor burden (Hu, 2012), self-image (Jian et al., 2012), insomnia (Rafferty et al., 2010), organization-based self-esteem(Hobman et al., 2009; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011), and affective well-being (Kernan et al., 2011). In each case, abusivesupervision perceptions were associated with undesirable levels of these outcome variables.
AttitudesAlthough attitudinal outcomes have not been studied with the frequency of aggression, deviance, and psychologicaldistress, the findings have been similarly consistent. Bowling and Michel (2011), Breaux et al. (2008), Haggard et al.(2011), Hobman et al. (2009), Kernan et al. (2011), and Lin et al. (2013) all observed negative relationships betweensubordinates’ reports of abusive supervision and job satisfaction. Additionally, Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, andWhitten (2011) observed that perceptions of abusive supervision in the workplace were associated with lower levelsof family satisfaction at home. A number of these relationships were moderated by individual and situational factors,as summarized in the section on moderators of outcomes.
PerformanceSeveral recent studies examined performance outcomes of abusive supervision perceptions and consistently foundnegative relationships. Aryee et al. (2008) found that the emotional exhaustion resulting from abuse perceptionswas negatively related to contextual performance, defined as “interpersonal and volitional behaviors that supportthe social and motivational context in which organizational work is accomplished” (Van Scotter & Motowidlo,1996, p. 525). Jian et al. (2012) and Xu et al. (2012) both observed similar relationships looking at subordinateratings of abusive supervision and supervisor ratings of subordinate performance. Other studies also examined out-comes associated with performance, including effort (Harris et al., 2011) and citizenship behaviors (Xu et al., 2012),again finding negative relationships with employee ratings of abusive supervision.
Justice perceptionsOne of the more commonly studied outcomes of abuse perceptions in both our review and Tepper’s (2007) review isjustice perceptions. These studies frequently conceptualize justice perceptions as an outcome that mediates theimpact of perceived abuse on other dependent variables. Burton and Hoobler (2011) found interactional justice ratingsto mediate the relationship between abuse perceptions and aggression. Similarly, interactional justice mediated therelationship between abuse ratings and deviance in the study of Wang et al. (2012). In Rafferty and Restubog’s(2011) study, interactional justice was observed to mediate the impact of abuse ratings on prosocial silence and voice.
Family well-beingFinally, several studies looked at hypothesized spillover effects of perceptions of abusive supervision intoemployees’ family lives. Two studies by Carlson and her colleagues found that abuse perceptions were associatedwith undesirable family outcomes. In one study (Carlson et al., 2011), they found that abusive supervision ratingswere positively associated with ratings of work–family conflict and relationship tension. This study also surveyedthe relationship partners of employees and found that the partners of abuse targets rated those targets as less effectiverelationship partners. In their 2012 study, Carlson et al. found further support for the relationship between abuseperceptions and work–family conflict, mediated by job burnout. Haggard et al. (2011) also found that employeeswho ruminated on their experiences with abusive supervision reported higher levels of work–family conflict thanthose who did not.
In a number of cases, the strength of the aforementioned abuse–outcome relationships was found to vary on the basis oflevels of various moderators. Tepper’s (2007) emergent model accounted for several categories of such moderatingfactors, including subordinate characteristics and behaviors, supervisor characteristics and behaviors, and work context.In this section, we summarize the moderation effects observed in the studies we reviewed, categorized by their relevanceto these three categories.
Subordinate characteristics and behaviorsAs indicated earlier, two studies investigated the moderating impact of subordinates’ attributions for abusivesupervision. Bowling and Michel (2011) found that the relationship between abuse and organization-directedretaliation was strongest when the perceived abuse was attributed to organizational factors. Although the authorsdid not find that supervisor-directed attributions moderated the relationship between abuse and supervisor-directedretaliation, they did find that these attributions were independently associated with retaliation toward supervisors.The other study examining attributions as a moderator was conducted by Liu et al. (2012). They found that creativitylevels were lowest when employees attributed abusive supervisor behaviors to injurious as opposed to performance-related motives.In addition to attributions, several other subordinate perceptions and attitudes were also found to moderate the
impact of abuse perceptions. Tepper et al. (2008), for instance, found that subordinates were more likely to engagein deviant reactions to abuse when they perceived that their coworkers approved of such deviance. In another study,Tepper et al. (2009) found that retaliatory deviance was more likely when subordinates had strong turnoverintentions, presumably reflecting a reduced level of concern with the consequences of such retaliation.Wu and Hu (2009) found that subordinates’ susceptibility to emotional contagion moderated the abuse–emotional
exhaustion relationship, finding a weaker relationship among subjects who were low on this measure. Additionally,subordinate perceptions of their supervisors authoritarian leadership style were found to strengthen the relationshipbetween perceptions of abuse and retaliatory behavior in the study of Thau et al. (2009). More broadly, Thau andMitchell (2010) observed that subordinate perceptions of distributive justice, although typically viewed as anoutcome of abuse as summarized earlier, moderated the relationship between abuse and supervisor-directed devi-ance. An interesting finding was that they observed that deviant behaviors were strongest among subordinateswho perceived relatively high levels of distributive justice. Several studies looked at subordinate personality traitsand abilities as moderators, including Burton and Hoobler (2011) who observed that narcissists, who often showa heightened sensitivity to perceived mistreatment, reacted more aggressively than others to the perceived injusticeassociated with abusive supervision. Mitchell and Ambrose (2012) and Wei and Si (2011) investigated locus ofcontrol as a moderator of the relationship between abuse perceptions and deviant retaliatory responses. Both thesestudies observed that retaliatory behaviors were more common among subordinates with external loci of control thanamong those with internal loci. Considering emotional intelligence as a moderator, Hu (2012) found that emotion-ally intelligent subordinates reacted less negatively to perceived abuse than others, reporting lower levels ofemotional labor burden.As mentioned in our summary of cross-cultural research, a number of studies have examined the moderating
impact of cultural variables. Most of these studies have focused on the dimension of power distance. Lian et al.(2012a) found that subordinates with higher power distance levels viewed abusive behaviors as less unfair than thosewithlow power distance levels, for instance. Lin et al. (2013) also observed that high power distance employees fared betterthan lower power distance employees in terms of job satisfaction and psychological health outcomes. Similarly, Wanget al. (2012) found that low power distance subordinates reported higher levels of interactional injustice than high powerdistance employees.Kernan et al. (2011) investigated a broader range of cultural variables including achievement values and
benevolence values, in addition to power distance, as moderators of relationships between abuse and job satisfaction,involvement, and perceived organizational support. Their findings did not show evidence of power distance as a
moderator for any of these relationships. They found evidence of negative relationships between abuse ratings andboth job satisfaction and perceived support among subjects with strong benevolence values but not among thosewith low benevolence scores. Similar findings were observed when investigating achievement values as a moderatorof these relationships (i.e., they were significantly negative for those with high achievement values but insignificantfor those with low achievement values). An interesting finding was that they also found a positive relationshipbetween abuse ratings and job involvement when achievement values were high but no relationship when achievementvalues were low.Another study of a cultural moderator was conducted by Liu et al. (2010). As summarized earlier, the authors
found that subjects with high traditionality values were less likely to engage in vengeful supervisor-directed actsof deviance in response to abusive supervisor than those with low traditionalism values.One study (Haggard et al., 2011) investigated gender differences in responses to abusive supervisory behaviors.
This study found that female subjects were more likely to co-ruminate (i.e., extensively discuss problems withothers) about abusive behaviors than male subjects. The study also showed that this rumination exacerbated thenegative relationship between perceived abuse and work–family conflict, job satisfaction, depression, and on thesubjects’ satisfaction with the relationships they shared with their co-ruminating friends.In terms of subordinate behaviors, Tepper et al. (2007) found that subordinates who rated their supervisors as
abusive experienced less psychological distress when they utilized direct maintenance communication tactics asopposed to regulatory maintenance tactics. This finding suggests that subordinates who confronted supervisorsperceived as abusive with their concerns experienced less distress than those who engaged in avoidance tactics tolimit their exposure to supervisors they perceived as abusive.
Supervisor characteristics and behaviorOur review only identified one new study that investigated supervisor-level moderators, although a few incorporatedLMX relationships as we discuss in the next section. Hobman et al. (2009) found that subordinates reported the leastdesirable levels of anxiety, psychological well-being, satisfaction, and self-esteem when they viewed their supervisor(i.e., thesis advisor) as both abusive and supportive. They suggested that this finding might reflect the unexpected natureof abusive behavior that occurs in the context of an otherwise supporting relationship. In a similar finding, The Lianet al. (2012b) study considered LMX as a moderator of the impact of abuse ratings on psychological need fulfillmentand found that the negative impact of perceived abuse on need satisfaction was stronger when LMX levels were high.It should be noted that LMX, having been rated by the subordinate in their study, could also be categorized as asubordinate perception rather than a leader characteristic. This point is reinforced by the finding of Martinko et al.(2011) of possible overlap between measures of LMX and abusive supervision perception.
Situational factorsTwo studies of situational moderators were summarized in the Organization-level factors section. These include thestudy of Aryee et al. (2008), which found that abuse ratings were more strongly related to emotional exhaustion andperformance in mechanistic versus organic organizational structures, and the study of Mawritz et al. (2012) on theexacerbating effect of hostile work climates.The Hobman et al. (2009) study described earlier also investigated the attenuating effect of team member support
and found that the impact of perceived abuse was reduced when peer support was high. Conversely, Wu and Hu(2009) found that the impact of abuse perceptions on emotional exhaustion was unexpectedly stronger whenperceived coworker support was high versus low. Finally, the Tepper et al. (2008) study, which found the abuse–deviance relationship to be stronger when coworkers were perceived to approve of workplace deviance, also foundthat actual deviant behaviors by coworkers further exacerbated this relationship.
Prior issuesIn our review of the earlier research, we identified several issues that we believed were critical to the integrity andcontributions of this body of research. With the exception of some improvement in study designs, we did not see
much progress. As before, we found causal inferences that appear unjustified, repeated assumptions thatperceptions of abuse are valid proxies for supervisory behavior, and a failure to consider alternative explanationsfor the outcomes associated with perceptions of abusive supervision. An example demonstrating these issues isthe statement of Thau and Mitchell (2010, p. 1009) that “a number of studies have found that employees harmthe organization, supervisor, and other members with deviant behaviors to pay back organizational authorities forabuse.” This statement indicates that subordinates’ deviant behaviors are caused by abuse and ignores other plausi-ble explanations for the relationships that were found. It also makes the assumption that the perceptions of abusereported by subjects are a valid proxy for actual abuse. Numerous other examples were identified but are not sharedbecause of space limitations.We also failed to find any attempt to validate measures of abusive supervision against objective observations of
supervisory behavior. Eight studies reiterated the claim of Tepper et al. (2006) that corporations lose $23.8 billionannually because of abusive supervision (i.e., Breaux et al., 2008; Kernan et al., 2011; Lian et al., 2012a; Linet al., 2013; Liu et al., 2012; Martinko et al., 2011; Tepper et al., 2011; Whitman, Halbesleben, & Shanine, 2013)but did not provide any independent verification of these costs.
Conclusions and a Constructive Revision
We found moderate progress regarding the issues Tepper (2007) identified. Progress was made in the area of culturewith the inclusion of non-U.S. samples helping to increase generalizability. However, the effects of the variousdimensions of culture were generally not evaluated with the exception of a handful of studies focusing mostly onpower distance. Only the Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) study investigated the sub-dimensions of an abusivesupervision measure, suggesting two factors. Two studies demonstrated that attributions for perceived abuse moderatedthe effects of perceptions of abuse on organizational outcomes. Most studies were constructive replications thatexplored additional outcome variables, antecedents, mediators, or moderators. The significant relationships from theseefforts are depicted in Figure 1.In addition to summarizing the variables and relationships from prior research, we added several new variables
and potential paths to the model depicted in Figure 1, which builds on Tepper’s (2007) emergent model. Ourconstructive revision explicitly recognizes the possibility of reverse causation with feedback loops from outcomesto both behavior and perceptions of abuse. We also added supervisory behavior as a separate variable to emphasizethat subordinates’ perceptions of abusive behavior are subjective interpretations of supervisory behaviors, which,because of their many associations with key organizational outcomes, deserve attention as a separate construct. Pathswere also added leading from the subordinate moderator variables, indicating that that these variables may moderateboth the behavior–perception and perception–outcome relationships as well as have direct effects on the outcomevariables. Areas for research are suggested by the variables and casual paths that have been added to the model.In the remainder of this section, we highlight three areas that appear to have significant explanatory potential oraffect the integrity of this line of research.
Abusive supervision as a subordinate perception
As we discussed previously, abusive supervision has been defined and measured as a perception, yet researchersappear to assume that it is a valid proxy for actual behavior. An illustration of this can be found in how researchershave defined abusive supervision in recent years. Tepper (2000, p. 178) originally defined abusive supervision as“subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbaland nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” More recent descriptions of abusive supervision include“sustained forms of nonphysical hostility perpetrated by managers against their subordinates” (Tepper et al.,2008, p. 721), “expressions of non-physical hostility supervisors perpetrate against their direct reports”
(Tepper et al., 2009, p. 156), and “nonphysical hostility perpetrated by employees’ immediate supervisors”(Tepper et al., 2011, p. 279). Our concern is that these assumptions have limited the consideration and analysisof abusive supervision as a perception. We recommend two perspectives that put the focus on the perceptual aspectsof abusive supervision.As described earlier, the research of Wu and Hu (2009) and Martinko et al. (2011) shows that personality
characteristics can bias subordinates’ perceptions and account for significant proportions of the variance in theirratings of abusive supervision. A recent conceptual article (Chan &McAllister, 2013) also makes the case that paranoidand sinister attributional tendencies exacerbate perceptual reactions to abusive supervisory behavior. Thus, we believethat systematic studies of the effects of personality characteristics on perceptions of abuse would be useful. Personalitycharacteristics may also help answer questions concerning why different subordinates perceive the same supervisor asinspirational whereas others view the supervisor as abusive. The biographies of Steve Jobs (Isaccson, 2011) and LyndonB. Johnson (Caro, 1981) demonstrate that whereas some subordinates considered their behavior as abusive, othersconsidered it inspirational and became followers. Qualitative research examining the personalities of the subordinatesof these types of polarizing leaders would be insightful.The work on implicit leadership theories (ILTs; Cronshaw & Lord, 1987; Eden & Leviatan, 1973; Epitropaki &
Martin, 2004, 2005) may also be helpful. We suspect that many of the relationships identified in abusive supervisionstudies may be influenced by spurious variables such as ILTs. First introduced in 1975, the basic notion of ILTs is
Figure 1. A Constructive Revision of the Tepper (2007) model
that subordinates’ preconceived ideas (i.e., prototypes) about leadership influence their evaluations such that“questionnaire responses may be mere reflections of respondents’ prior conceptions and not veridical representationsof empirical reality in the organizational environment” (Eden & Leviatan, 1973, p. 736). The research of Epitropakiand Martin (2004, 2005) and Cronshaw and Lord (1987) demonstrates that leadership prototypes influenceleadership evaluations. Thus, questionnaire ratings can be viewed as reflections of the respondents’ prototypes(i.e., ILT) rather than ratings of specific leader behaviors. Consequently, if subordinates employ an overallnegative prototype for a supervisor, they are more likely to rate the supervisor negatively on specific behaviorssuch as goal setting, feedback, helpfulness, and abuse regardless of the supervisor’s actual behavior.We propose that underlying the constellation of relationships associated with abusive supervision, in some cases,
is a general negative attitude toward work, authority, and supervision. We propose that individuals with these typesof negative attitudes, which we will call implicit work theories (IWTs), dislike their jobs and their supervisors. As aresult, they perform poorly, receive negative feedback, rate their supervisors as abusive, and experience negativeoutcomes such as those associated with abusive supervision. Developing scales to assess the impact of IWTs mightalso be useful.Finally, Martinko et al. (2011) found evidence that the Tepper (2000) abusive supervision scale and the LMX
scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) were confounded. Because of this confound, Martinko, Sikora, and Harvey (2012)conceptualized abusive supervision as a subset of the perceptions of leader–member relations. ILTs may underlieand explain relationships found in both the leader–member relations and abusive supervision bodies of research.Additional research is warranted in this area. The confound between the LMX and the abusive supervision scalesindicates that they both are measuring much of the same thing. If the cause of the confound is ILTs, other scalesintended to measure specific leader behaviors may have similar problems.
Abusive supervision as a behavior
There are many similarities between abusive supervision and other counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).Spector (2011) suggested that most of these forms of CWBs can be conceptualized as aggressive behaviors andproposes an integrative theory of CWBs on the basis of aggression that illustrates how environmental, personality,and perceptual factors interact with individuals’ cognitions and emotions, which lead to CWBs. According to thisframework, aggressive supervisory behavior is influenced by supervisors’ personality characteristics such as hostileattribution biases, narcissism, negative affectivity, and trait anger, all of which have been included in either Tepper’s(2007) review or ours. Likewise, Spector’s (2011) model includes the effects of the environment, attributional, andemotional processes, all of which have been considered in the studies we have cited. Thus, Tepper’s observationthat abusive supervision lacks a strong conceptual base may be addressed by adapting models of aggression suchas Spector’s.Another perspective of organizational aggression that may be helpful is the elaboration likelihood model of
workplace aggression by Douglas et al. (2008). The emphasis in this model is on the process by which attitudes,emotion, and attributions interact over repeated exposures resulting in cognitive knots, which often culminate inaggressive counterproductive behaviors. This theory helps address Tepper’s (2007) question of how the “sustaineddisplay” of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors affects subordinates.
Validation
Finally, validation of abusive supervision scales by connecting their results with actual behaviors is needed.Although we expect that a very large proportion of the variance in subordinates’ perceptions of abuse is a functionof abusive supervisory behavior, it is not clear how much of the variance is due to other factors such as subordinatepersonality characteristics. We suggest several options. First, it may be possible to correlate subordinates perceptions
of abuse with supervisors who have had grievance or complaints filed. Second, correlations between subordinateswith the same supervisor might be helpful. A recent study by Harvey and Martinko (2013) found a .37 correlationbetween perceptions of abusive supervision for subordinates who shared the same supervisor, suggesting somevalidity but also leaving a large proportion of the variation unexplained. Laboratory studies using videos of super-visory behavior may also be used to determine the extent to which different observers rate behaviors as abusive.Finally, with the routine use of video cameras in many organizations, it may be possible to objectively study abusivebehaviors and subordinate reactions.
Final Thoughts
The footnote at the end of the Tepper’s (2007) review indicates that “advocates in the United States are lobbying forthe passage of the Healthy Workplace Bill, a vehicle through which victims of abusive supervision would have thelegal standing to seek redress in civil courts (p. 285)”. As of 25 March 2013, 24 states in the United States haveintroduced Healthy Workplace Bills, and there are 12 active bills in nine of the states (Healthy Workplace Bill,2013). Healthy Workplace Bills have also been introduced or passed in Europe and Australia. We are hopeful thatthe concerns we have raised and the reformulated model we offer will help guide researchers and practitionerstoward a better understanding of the causes and consequences of abusive supervision. The decisions that affectboth subordinates and supervisors need to be as informed as possible.
Author biographies
Mark J. Martinko (PhD) recently joined the faculty at the University of Queensland. He teaches in the areas ofleadership, organizational behavior, and attribution theory. His research focuses on attribution theory, which hehas applied to the areas of motivation, leadership, impression management, whistle blowing, emotions, abusivesupervision, and entitlement.Paul Harvey (PhD) is an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire. He teaches in the areas ofleadership, international management, conflict management, and organizational behavior. His research focusesentitlement, aggression, leadership, and abusive supervision.Jeremy Brees (PhD) is an assistant professor at the University of Scranton and teaches in the areas of organizationalbehavior, human resources, and conflict management. His research focuses on abusive supervision, attributiontheory, personality, and accountability.Jeremy Mackey is a PhD student in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at Florida StateUniversity. His current research interests include interpersonal mistreatment, attribution theory, job stress, andVeterans of the United States military transitioning to work in civilian organizations.
ReferencesAryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and contextual performance: Themediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and OrganizationReview, 4, 393–411.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test of a model.Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851–861.
Biron, M. (2010). Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and organizationaldeviance. Human Relations, 63, 875–897.
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse insubordinates’ responses to abusive supervision. Work and Stress, 25, 309–320.
Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Time to try a little tenderness? Thedetrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,15, 111–122.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachmentand detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912–922.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice andnarcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Kernan, M. C. (2011). When research setting is important: The influence of subordinate self-esteem on reactions to abusive supervision. Organization Management Journal, 8, 139–150.
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effectof exercise. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 271–279.
Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., & Whitten, D. (2012). Abusive supervision and work–family conflict: The path throughemotional labor and burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 849–859.
Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., & Whitten, D. (2011). The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination ofsubordinates and their partners. Personnel Psychology, 64, 937–961.
Caro, R. A. (1981). The path to power (The years of Lyndon Johnson) (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.Chan, M., & McAllister, D. (2013). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of ManagementReview. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2011.0419
Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 97–106.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity inorganizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993–1005.
Douglas, S. C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Kim, Y., & Chun, J. U. (2008). Cognitions, emotions, and evaluations:An elaboration likelihood model for workplace aggression. Academy of Management Review, 33, 425–451.
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1973). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisorybehavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741.
Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001). The negative acts questionnaire: Development, validation, revision of a measure of bullying atwork. Paper presented at 10th European Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology, Prague.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, andstability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676.
Haggard, D. L., Robert, C., & Rose, A. J. (2011). Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment trade-offs for men and womenwho engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 27–40.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision,and their joint impacts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 38–50.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. The LeadershipQuarterly, 22, 1010–1023.
Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2013). Perceptions of abusive supervision among entitled employees. Presented at the 10thAustralia Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference. Perth, Australia.
Healthy Workplace Bill. (2013). http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org/Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investigatingthe role of social support. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 233–256.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations(2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Hu, H.-H. (2012). The influence of employee emotional intelligence on coping with supervisor abuse in a banking context. SocialBehavior and Personality, 40, 863–874.
Hu, C., Wu, T.-Y., & Wang, Y. H. (2011). Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive supervision measure acrossworkers from Taiwan and the United States. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145, 111–131.
Isaccson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.Jian, Z., Kwan, H. K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z. Q., & Kim, F. H.-K. (2012). Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ serviceperformance. Service Industries Journal, 32, 683–698.
Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Chen, F. F., & Kim, T. G. (2011). How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision onworker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management, 18, 464–484.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarianleadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisorybehavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of abusivesupervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 869–882.
Li, R., Ling, W. Q., & Liu, S. S. (2009). The mechanisms of how abusive supervision impacts on subordinates’ voice behavior.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41, 1189–1202.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012a). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? Itdepends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107–123.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012b). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervisionand leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 117, 41–52.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scaledevelopment. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distanceorientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 308–329.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: Themoderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 83, 835–856.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusivesupervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187–1212.
Ma, L., & Wang, H. (2011). Reducing financial risks in view of the organizational and leadership factors. Journal of TsinghuaUniversity, Science and Technology, 51, 530–535.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751–764.
Martinko, M. J., Sikora, D., & Harvey, P. (2012). The relationships between attribution styles, LMX, and perceptions of abusivesupervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 397–406.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusivesupervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negativereciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination ofindividual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1148–1170.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job.Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citizenshipbehaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22, 270–285.
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors’experience of injustice on subordinates’ psychological health. Work and Stress, 24, 36–55.
Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011).When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychologicaldistress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.
Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2011). Helping and harming others in the workplace: The roles of personal values andabusive supervision. Human Relations, 64, 1051–1078.
Sheehan, M., McCarthy, P., Barker, M., & Henderson, M. (2001). A model for assessing the impacts and costs of workplacebullying. Paper presented at the Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism (SCOS), Trinity College, Dublin.
Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives.Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342–352.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management,33, 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, andemployees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,109, 156–167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusivesupervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-leveldissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., Lockhart, D., & Carr, J. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, andsubordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169–1180.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisorabuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,1009–1031.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship betweenabusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextualperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactionaljustice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43–60.
Wei, F., & Si, S. (2011). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locusof control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 281–296.
Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. K. (2013). Psychological entitlement and abusive supervision: Politicalskill as a self-regulatory mechanism. Health Care Management Review, 3, 248–257.
Wu, T. (2008). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: The mediating effects of subordinate justice perception andemotional labor. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 50, 201–221.
Wu, T., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries.Group Organization Management, 34, 143–169.
Wu, L.-Z., Liu, J., & Liu, G. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41, 510–518.
Xiaqi, D., Kun, T., Chongsen, Y., & Sufang, G. (2012). Abusive supervision and LMX: Leaders’ emotional intelligence asantecedent variable and trust as consequence variable. Chinese Management Studies, 6, 257–270.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543.
