SUBORDINATES’ ATTRIBUTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION WITHIN
A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED CULTURE:
EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the College of Business Administration
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
by
Ashley Erin Goodwill
FALL 2014
© 2014
Ashley Erin Goodwill
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
Student: Ashley Erin Goodwill
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
______, Graduate Coordinator ______Monica Lam Date
Department of Business Administration
iii
SUBORDINATES’ ATTRIBUTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION WITHIN
A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED CULTURE:
EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE
A Project
by
Ashley Erin Goodwill
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Ping “Tyra” Shao
______Date
iv
Abstract
of
SUBORDINATES’ ATTRIBUTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION WITHIN
A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED CULTURE:
EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE
by
Ashley Erin Goodwill
The study examines who would become victims of abusive supervision, and among those victims, whose performance would be affected from being abused. Using a sample of 215 full-time US employees occupying a variety of positions across an organization in the finance industry, I found that job performance did not affect the likelihood of becoming the victims of abusive supervision. Further, among the employees who attributed supervisors’ abusive motive to injury initiation, abusive supervision was positively related to their consequential job performance.
INDEX WORDS: Abusive Supervision, Job performance, Attribution Style
______, Committee Chair Ping “Tyra” Shao
______Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to those who have so graciously and gently helped to shape who I am and guide me along my path. This was a labor of love and I am so grateful for the support of my professor, Dr. Ping “Tyra” Shao, as she has shared her passion of organizational leadership with me. Also, thank you to my sisters and niece for being a continuing source of inspiration. You always remind me to live life with a side of laughter. Thank you to my guardian angel above for always believing in me and teaching me how to live life with a flair. And lastly, more than a lifetime’s worth of gratitude to both my mother and father for their unwavering support, kind words, and constant source of encouragement.
vi
DEDICATION
Bea – let this serve as an example that with hard work, perseverance and determination, your goals will become dreams and your dreams will become reality. I’ve chased my dreams; now it is time to go after yours. With that being said, I dedicate this to you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements..………………………………………………………………. vi
Dedication..…..……………………………………………………………………. vii
List of Tables………..…………………………………………………………….. x
List of Figures………..……………………………………………………………. xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION..……………….………………………………………...… 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW, RESEARCH QUESTIONS,
AND HYPOTHESES..…………………………..…………………………….. 4
Antecedents………..………………………………………………...... 4
Outcomes and Consequences..……………………………………...... 7
Moderators………………………..………………………………...... 13
Research Questions and Hypotheses..…………………………………….. 19
3. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA……………..………………………………….. 22
Participants and Procedure……………..………………….……………… 22
Measures………………………………..…………………………………. 22
4. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS…..……………………………...... 24
Results……………………………………..…...…………………………. 24
5. DISCUSSION…………………………………..……………………………. 27
Theoretical Implications……………………...…………………………… 27
viii
Practical Implications…………………………..………………………… 28
Limitations and Future Research………………..………………………... 28
Appendices………………………………………………..……………………… 35
Appendix A. Email to Employee Participants………..…………………….. 36
Appendix B. Subordinate Survey……………………..…………………….. 38
Appendix C. Supervisor Survey..………………………..………………….. 48
References……………………………………………………..………………….. 54
ix
LIST OF TABLES Tables Page
1. Zero-order Correlations Among Variables….…………..…………………. 30
2. Regression Analysis – Previous Month’s Job Performance and Abusive
Supervision………………………………………………..……………….. 31
3. Interactional between Abusive Supervision, Performance Promotion Motive,
and Injury Initiation Motive in Relation to Job Performance in the Following
Month…………………………………………….…………………………. 32
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Interaction between Abusive Supervision and Injury Initiation Motive in Relation
to Job Performance in the Following Month…………………………..…... 33
2. Employees Attribution of Leaders’ Engagement in Abusive Supervision
Behavior …………………………………………………………………… 34
xi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Abundant research has investigated the effectiveness of leader behaviors.
However, little do we understand who would become the victims of dark-side leadership, such as abusive supervision and through what psychological mechanisms do such leadership affect employees’ behaviors. Abusive supervision refers to “the subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000: 178).
Abusive supervision behavior involves non-physical destructive behavior such as angry outbursts, public ridiculing, taking credit for subordinates’ successes, and scapegoating subordinates (Tepper, 2000).
According to Tepper (2007), an estimated 13.6% of United States workers fall victim of abusive supervision. Other studies indicate that it could actually be an alarming
16% (Namie & Namie, Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004). Media reports claim that the frequency continues to increase (Workplace bullies, 2005).
Furthermore, subordinates might frequently be reluctant to report abusive supervisors which causes even more apprehension (Tepper, 2000).
In addition, a review of research claims that according to 9 studies, corporations lose $23.8 billion annually as a consequence of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007). More recent research effort has been put into the abusive supervision literature since Tepper’s claim. More currently, it has been discovered that employees experienced mental contract failure. This is caused by the feeling that their employer failed to return what had been
2 promised which contributed to supervisors abusive behaviors towards their subordinates
(Hoobler & Brass, 2006).
In a review paper, Tepper (2007) indicates that much more investigation is needed to gain a better understanding of this important topic. A study done by Aquino (2000) found that people who present themselves as weak and unwilling to fight back are more likely to be victimized and have a higher rate of reporting victimization because they provoke others to behave aggressively towards them. Tepper, Moss, & Duffy (2011) discuss subordinates’ usefulness or utility as a predictor of abusive supervision.
Subordinate performance evaluation captures the supervisor’s perception that the subordinate meets performance standards. There is also an indirect effect of perceived deep-level dissimilarity through relationship conflict that is stronger when supervisors perceive subordinates to be poor performers. Supervisors experience relationship conflict and assign lower performance evaluations to subordinates who are perceived to be dissimilar, which in turn, is associated with subordinates’ reports that they have been the target of abusive supervision. Subordinates who are perceived as having lower performance are more likely to become targets for supervisor hostility.
From a moral exclusion perspective, supervisors perceive lower performers to be potentially harmful and threatening and to thus have low utility. Empirical evidence from the leadership literature supports this thesis: lower performers are more likely to make supervisors look bad, interfere with their capacity to accomplish their work, and take up more of their time addressing the fallout poor performance causes (Bass, 1990). The low utility of subordinates who are perceived to be lower performers positions them beyond
3 their supervisors’ scopes of justice, which puts them at risk of exclusionary practices such as abusive supervision.
Consequently, abusive supervision has proven to have significant effects on the following: subordinates’ aggressive and deviant behavior, performance contributions, and work-related attitudes (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013). Furthermore, another significant issue that companies are facing is losing valued employees to psychological distress and work withdrawal. This provides as significant evidence to further explore the factors in this emerging subject.
The purpose of this research is to contribute to the existing literature in abusive supervision by proposing that low performers are more likely to become victims of abusive supervision. Among employees being abused, those who attributed the supervisors’ abusive behavior to performance motives are more likely to increase their performance while those who attributed the supervisors’ abusive behavior to personal injury motives are more likely to reduce their performance.
In the following sections, I will review the abusive supervision literature, propose my hypotheses and findings, and discuss the implications of the findings. Limitations of the study will also be presented.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW, RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND HYPOTHESES
Antecedents
Tepper (2007) claims that there are many meaningful elements in abusive supervision. First, “abusive supervision is a subjective assessment subordinates make on the basis of their observations of their supervisors’ behavior” (Tepper, 2007:264).
Second, it refers to continued acts of non-physical animosity. Lastly, abusive supervision falls within the domain of willful behavior, meaning that supervisors penetrate abusive behavior for a purpose (Tepper, 2000). This can reflect the unexplored idea that abusive supervisors may mistreat subordinates to accomplish objectives other than causing harm.
For example, abusive supervisors may evoke certain mistreating behaviors to promote a higher performance.
To further understand the causes of abusive supervision, I will review the existing literature on the antecedents of abusive supervision, including supervisors and victims of abusive supervision.
Supervisor-level factors. Prior research has indicated that supervisors’ characteristics affect their behavior. Particularly, research has identified stress causes abusive behavior. Stress can lead to mental contract failure which can in turn cause displaced and retaliatory aggression which ultimately leads to the behaviors of abusive supervision.
First, supervisors who experience high stress levels are prone to abuse their subordinates (Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012). This continues to be the case with a
5 particular type of stressor, co-worker conflict (Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011). They discovered that supervisors who reported high levels of conflict with their subordinates were perceived by their subordinates as more abusive. Tepper (2011) reviewed the antecedents of supervisor mistreatment and found that supervisors who reported a high level of dissimilarity (belief that the supervisor and employees hold different values and attitudes) with subordinates were subject to engage in conflicts and abusive behaviors.
Research done by KIewitz (2012) investigated supervisor-level antecedents of abuse. The study found that supervisors with a family history of undermining were more inclined to display abusive behaviors. This was especially the case for supervisors who revealed low self-control. This is also true among subordinates who have a lower organizational self-esteem (Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010).
However, subordinates perceive their supervisors as less abusive when the subordinates have higher levels of emotional intelligence.
Tepper (2007) discusses a culmination of three studies that suggest that researchers have encompassed abusive supervision as “displaced aggression, hostility that is directed against convenient and innocent targets when retaliation against the source of one’s frustration is not possible or feasible” (Tepper 2007: 269) The argument is that
“supervisors who are prone to hostility (because they have experienced mistreatment) will express their resentment against targets other than the provoking agent (i.e., the organization) out of fear that doing so many evoke further mistreatment” (Bushman,
Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, & Miller, 2005). Not all supervisors who believe that they have been the victims of mistreatment abuse their employees. The relationship between
6 perceived unfair treatment and contract failure is regulated over by subordinate characteristics, especially victim characteristics (Tepper, 2007). In Tepper’s review he states that abusive supervision is “a subjective assessment subordinates make on the basis of their observations of their supervisors’ behavior” (Tepper, 2007:264). Abusive supervision also refers to sustained displays of nonphysical hostility.
In another study by Hoobler et al. (2006), they found that supervisors who experienced mental contract failure felt that their employer failed to return what had been promised. The study suggests that these supervisors were more violent and cruel toward their subordinates. This effect was especially strong among supervisors who held a hateful attribution bias (a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate and/or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors).
In a recent study, Aryee, Chen, Sun and Debrah (2007) found that supervisors who themselves experienced interactional injustice were more abusive towards their subordinates. The researchers also found that supervisors’ authoritarianism, defined as the extent to which people embrace dominance and control as legitimate forms of leadership, moderated the relationship between supervisors’ interactional justice and abusive supervision; the relationship was stronger when supervisors were higher in authoritarianism. This causes frustration and resentment that may be displaced against targets other that the source. It is more likely to occur when supervisors holds a firm belief that subordinates should demonstrate unquestioning obedience to authority figures.
This can be defined as retaliatory aggression.
7
Employee characteristics. Moreover, victimization research “implicitly provides an alternative to the displaced aggression perspective in suggesting that some supervisors abuse their subordinates” because they find them challenging to deal with (Tepper 2007:
273). A study done by Aquino (2000) found that people who present themselves as weak and unwilling to fight back are more likely to be victimized and have a higher rate of reporting victimization because they provoke others to behave aggressively towards them.
Outcomes and Consequences
Whether it is displaced aggression or retaliatory aggression, abusive behavior is associated with m any negatively impacting outcomes including: subordinates’ unfavorable attitude toward the job and organization, resistance behavior, aggressive and deviant work behavior, diminished psychological well-being and reduced family well- being. A study by Tepper (2000) implies that there are additional undesirable outcomes including turnover, stress, emotional exhaustion and perceived injustice.
Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Work-Related Attitudes. Perceptions of abusive supervision in the workplace are associated with lower levels of home life and family satisfaction (Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, & Whitten, 2011).
Extant research suggests that abusive supervision is negatively related to job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2004) and organizational commitment, and positively related to intentions to quit. Some of this work has investigated the mediating mechanisms that explain how abusive supervision produces unfavorable attitudes. Tepper
8
(2000) found that perceived injustice mediated the effects of abusive supervision on subordinates’ attitudes, and Schat, Desmarais, et al. (2006) found that the experience or irritation and the fear of future aggression explained these effects.
This work also addresses the circumstances under which abusive supervision is related to unfavorable attitudes. Tepper (2000) found that the effects of abusive supervision on work-related attitudes were stronger among those who had less job mobility. Tepper attributed this to the notion that abused subordinates who have fewer attractive job alternatives will feel trapped and unable to escape from the source of their stress (i.e. their supervisor). Duffy et al. (2002) reported that supervisor support exacerbated the effect of abusive supervision, arguing inconsistent behavior (i.e. combining hostility and supportive behavior) engenders insecurity, diminished self- control, and low trust and taxes subordinates’ coping resources, thereby producing less favorable outcomes (compared to hostility alone). Tepper et al. (2004) found that abusive supervision moderated the relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ job satisfaction; the relationship was positive when abusive supervision was lower and negative when abusive supervision was higher. The authors argue that workers respond favorably to their coworkers’ performance of pro- social behaviors, but only when the group’s supervisor is not abusive. When the supervisor is abusive, employees perceive their coworkers’ citizenship to be insincere attempts to curry favor with the abuser - hence, greater citizenship leads to less favorable attitudes. Overall, there are negative relationships between subordinates’ reports of abusive supervision and job satisfaction.
9
Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Aggressive and Deviant Behavior. Three studies have explored relationships between abusive behavior and subordinates’ aggressive behavior. Schat, Demarais, et al. (2006) found that abusive supervision was positively related to subordinates’ irritation, which in turn related to their level of aggression against coworkers. Inness, Barling and Turner (2005) found that abusive supervision was positively related to supervisor-targeted aggression and that history of aggression moderated this effect; abusive supervision was more strongly associated with supervisor-directed aggression when the subordinate had a history of being more aggressive. Supre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, and Hoption (2006) replicated the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ supervisor-directed aggression and also found that employees’ reasons for working moderated this effect; the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed aggression was stronger when employees reported higher financial reasons for working and lower personal fulfillment reasons for working.
In two published studies, abusive supervision has been linked with deviant organizational behaviors, actions that violate organizational norms and that threaten the organization and/or its employees (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In the first such study,
Duffy et al. (2002) found that supervisor undermining was positively related to subordinates’ performance of counterproductive behaviors and that supportive supervisor behavior exacerbated these effects. Mitchell and Ambrose (in press) found that abusive supervision was positively related to supervisor-directed deviance ( e.g., acting rudely toward, or gossiping about, the supervisor), interpersonal deviance (e.g., saying hurtful
10 things about, or playing mean pranks on, others at work), and organization-directed deviance (e.g., stealing from the organization). Moreover, the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance was stronger among subordinates who subscribed to a negative reciprocity norm, the believed that retribution is an appropriate response to perceived mistreatment. Mitchell and Ambrose interpreted their findings as providing support for a “tit-for-tat” argument (i.e., abused subordinates retaliate directly against the supervisor, the source of their mistreatment) and for displaced aggression argument (i.e., abused subordinates experience resentment and anger that they take out on their employer and others in the workplace).
Two as yet unpublished works report relationships provide further evidence that abusive supervision evokes dysfunctional subordinate behavior. Schaubhut, Adams, and
Jex (2004) found that abusive supervision was related to subordinates’ performance of interpersonal and organizational deviance and that the strength of these relationships depended on subordinates’ performance of interpersonal and organizational deviance and that the strength of these relationships depended on subordinates’ self-esteem, the extent to which individuals have positive views of themselves. The researchers found that among subordinates who self-esteem was low, abusive supervision was unrelated to subordinates’ deviance behavior; however, for subordinates with high self-esteem, abusive supervision was positively related to work deviance. The authors explain that abusive supervision poses more of a threat to the self-image of high self-esteem subordinates than to low-self-esteem subordinates (whose self-image should be unfavorable irrespective of the treatment afforded by their supervisor). Because threats to
11 esteem evoke hostile reactions (Baumeister & Boden, 1998), abusive supervision produces deviant behavior on the part of high-self-esteem subordinates. In a series of three studies, Thau and Mitchell (2006) found that abusive supervision was positively related to organization-directed deviance and that these relationships were stronger when subordinates were higher in validation seeking, the dispositional motivation to prove and maintain one’s self worth. Thau et al. (2006) argue that validation seekers experience a challenge to their self-worth when confronted with threatening interactions (e.g., exposure to abusive supervisors) and that they responded by performing behaviors that are designed to restore their sense of self. However, because validation seekers are poor self-regulators who focus more on themselves than on the effects their behavior may have on others (Crocker & Park, 2004), they often react to threatening encounters with destructive acts that may be at odds with the needs and values of other people (e.g., deviant behaviors).
Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Performance Contributions. In a small number of studies, researchers have investigated relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates’ performance contributions. Zellers, Tepper, and Duffy
(2002) found that subordinates’ experiences of procedural justice mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988), performance contributions that benefit the organization but that fall outside the employee’s job description and are not formally rewarded (e.g., helping coworkers when doing so is warranted, behaving courteously, and not complaining about trivial problems). More recently, Aryee et al. (2007) found that subordinates’
12 interactional justice mediated the relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates’ citizenship behavior. Although neither study investigated relationships with individual or group performance, citizenship behavior has been linked with bottom-line performance indicators (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997), suggesting that abusive supervision may have indirect influences on unit performance through its effect on citizenship behavior.
In the only study that has investigated the relationship between abusive supervision and job performance, Harris, Kacmar, and Zivnuska (in press) found that abusive supervision was negatively related to self-rated and leader-rated job performance.
Furthermore, these relationships depended on the degree to which subordinates value the work they do; among subordinates for whom work held more meaning, abusive supervision was a better predictor of performance. The authors reasoned that subordinates for whom work holds more meaning are more concerned about their standing in the organization and therefore expend more energy and effort dealing with abusive supervisors.
Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Psychological Distress. Abusive supervision represent “prolonged emotional or psychological mistreatment of subordinates” (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). It is commonly accepted acknowledged that abused subordinates will experience increased levels of psychological distress. This includes many forms of cognitive vexation: anxiety, depression, job strain, and burnout (Chi & Liang, 2013). It has been proposed that subordinates use emotion- regulation strategies uniquely as a way of handling relationships with their supervisors
13
(Waldron, 1991). Tepper (2000) noted that some may be able to cope with abusive behavior more effectively than others based off of personal variations of characteristics.
Further evidence suggests that emotion-regulation is a compelling mechanism that outlines the emotions people experience under certain circumstances (Eisenberg, Fabes,
Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Emotionally drained employees are more likely to disengage from their work environment than other employees (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Bryne, 2003).
Consequently, abusive supervision enhances subordinates’ feelings of emotional exhaustion (Chi et al., 2013).
Furthermore, when subordinates are exposed to prolonged stressful work surroundings, they may incur low energy levels and exhaustion, and are therefore likely to experience psychological distress (Chi et al., 2013). They also argue that perceptions of abusive supervision impose significant emotional demands on subordinates’ resources and prevent them from having pleasant interactions with their supervisors which leads to a loss of valued resources and a need for coping resourcing and psychological need fulfillment, causing a heightened level of emotional distress.
Moderators
Research indicates that individual reactions to abusive supervision vary in type and severity. For example, Tepper (2000) concluded that the impact of abusive supervision is likely to be stronger for subordinates with low levels of job mobility. He explained that individuals who feel they must subject themselves to abusive supervision, given their lack of job alternatives, would react more severely than those with greater
14 mobility. Additionally, Tepper et al. (2001) reported that conscientious individuals responded to abusive supervision in a more constructive manner than those with low conscientiousness. In the present study, we seek to investigate the extent to which two variables, ingratiation and PA, might act as moderators that help individuals cope with abusive supervision. As noted in the introduction, this coping ability might be beneficial, given that it can be difficult for organizational leaders to detect and eradicate abusive supervision.
As discussed earlier, Burton et al. (2012) found that physical exercise attenuated the stress, abusive supervision relationship, and Kiazad et al. (2010) found that organization based self-efficacy moderated the relationship between Machiavellian leadership styles and perceptions of abusive supervision. Additionally, Tepper et al.
(2011) found that supervisors’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance moderated the relationship between perceived dissimilarity with subordinates and the supervisors’ abusive behavior toward those subordinates. They found that supervisors were more abusive toward the subordinates they viewed as most dissimilar to themselves, an effect that was exacerbated among dissimilar subordinates rated as poor performers by the supervisor. Similarly, Harris et al. (2011) observed that supervisors were more abusive towards subordinates with whom they shared low quality LMX relationships.
Considerable research has demonstrated that employees tend to withdraw from their work when they feel emotionally exhausted (e.g., Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt,
2010; Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002). Studies suggest that abusive behavior perpetrated by supervisors may lead abused subordinates to temporarily withdraw psychologically
15 from their work (Harvey et al. 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007) for example, by depending work time on personal matters and daydreaming, due to reduced emotional attachment to their jobs and work units. It is argued that subordinates’ emotional exhaustion may mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and work withdrawal. When exhausted subordinates are unable to minimize further resource loss, they may engage in withdrawal behaviors to cope with the depletion of value resources (Cole et al., 2010).
Although abusive supervision is generally believed to have a positive supervision have varied substantially in empirical research (e.g., Harris et al., 2011; Harvey et al.,
2007; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Tepper et al., 2007). We expect that subordinates’ use of emotion-regulation strategies may influence the effect of abusive supervision on work withdrawal in the same way that it influences the effect of such behavior on subordinates; emotional exhaustion.
As previously mentioned, there are many moderators of the antecedents of abusive behavior. Job mobility, self-efficacy, and emotional exhaustion all have an influences on the attributions of abusive supervision.
Organization-level factors. According to research, there is evidence to suggest that organizational factors encourage abusive demeanors. Tepper (2007) implies that organizational norms, more specifically, can contribute to unfair behaviors. Very few studies have contributed to this notion (Martinko et al., 2013). Aryee (2008) found that the effects of the perceived abusive behaviors were more significant in centralized, top- down cultures, than in cultures with decentralization and increased collaboration.
(Martinko et al., 2013).
16
Furthermore, another study by Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, and Marinova
(2012) investigates the work climate. They discovered that the relationship between abusive supervision ratings and interpersonal deviance by subordinates was exacerbated in organizations characterized by hostile work climates.
More evidence by Bowling and Michel (2011) identifies that there is a correlation between organizational-directed retaliation and abuse and that the relationship was strongest when the perceived abuse was attributed to organizational factors.
Subordinates’ attributions. Tepper (2007) argues that measuring subordinates’ attributions for abusive supervisory behaviors might help to explain the reactions of the subordinates and the abusers’ intentions. He also argued that subordinates might have different reactions to abusive behaviors that are attributed the motives and intentions. A review of Tepper’s argument brought in an additional two sources from Bowling et al.
(2011) that tested the moderating impact of attributions on the relationship between abusive supervision and the three outcome variables: employee well-being, supervisor- directed retaliation, and organization-direct retaliation.
In a review of Tepper’s Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review,
Synthesis, and Research Agenda, the authors answer his call for further research of the characteristics that might incline some supervisors to engage in abusive behaviors. They conclude two segments: subordinate characteristics and behaviors, and supervisor characteristics and behavior (Martinko et al., 2013).
Subordinate characteristics and behaviors. As previously mentioned, Bowling et al. (2011) identified in their research that there is a correlation between organizational-
17 directed retaliation and abuse. When referring to subordinate behaviors, results showed that the abuse is actually an independent from and is associated with revenge towards their supervisors.
Furthermore, Tepper (2008) found that subordinates were likely to involve themselves in deviant reactions when they perceived that deviant abuse was acceptable from their peers. A year later, Tepper provided additional evidence that suggested that retaliatory abuse was more common among employees who had strong intentions of departure from organizations (Tepper, 2009). Deviant behavior was considered strongest among subordinates who perceived chronic exposure to injustice (Thau et al., 2010). This was a consequence of not having concern for the consequences of their deviant actions.
In addition to chronic exposure to injustice, subordinates were more inclined to emotional contamination which moderated emotional-distress. This seemed to be a weaker correlation amid those who were low on this metric.
Simultaneous to deviant behaviors, creativity levels are also an aftereffect of abuse. A study by Liu (2012) found that when subordinates applied supervisor intentions to be damaging and not performance-related, creativity level were considered to be lowest.
More moderation analysis claims that hostile abuse is more strongly related to subordinates’ attitudes when subordinates have less job flexibility (Tepper, 2000). This also proves to be true when supervisors exhibit more supportive behavior (Tepper, Henle,
Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2009). Abusive supervision is more strongly correlated with workplace performance when subordinates deem the work more meaningful and
18 valuable (Harris, Harvey, Harris, & Cast 2013). Moreover, narcissists are deemed as more sensitive to their perceived injustice in the workplace tending to react more aggressively (Burton & Hoobler, 2011). In this case as well, the characteristics are moderators of the perceived abuse.
Cultural variables can also be moderators through the elements of power distance, achievement, and traditionality. Those who viewed their organizations as having higher power distance viewed supervisors’ abusive behaviors as less unfair than those who perceived their organizational environment as one who lower levels of power distance
(Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). Another study detected that high power distance subordinates handled outcomes such as job satisfaction and psychological health, more productively (Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013). Adversely, subordinates reported more significant occurrences of abuse in lower power distance situations (Lin et al., 2013).
Achievement values are seen to negatively correlate the abuse ratings with job satisfaction. When subordinate perceived their supervisors the achievement values and benevolence values have negative relationships between abuse ratings and both job satisfaction and perceived support with strong benevolence values. Additionally, there is a negative relationship for high achievement values and it’s not significant for low achievement values. However, there is a positive relationship between abuse ratings and job involvement when achievement values were high but no relationship when achievement values were low (Martinko et al., 2013).
My literature review only identifies one new study that investigated supervisor- level moderators, although a few incorporated LMX relationships as we discuss in the
19 next section. Hobman et al. (2009) found that subordinates reported the least desirable levels of anxiety, psychological well-being, satisfaction, and self-esteem when they viewed their supervisor (i.e., thesis advisor) as both abusive and supportive. This is a significant study to note because people who make motivational attributions are more likely to see their supervisor as supportive. They suggested that this finding might reflect the unexpected nature of abusive behavior that occurs in the context of an otherwise supporting relationship. It should be noted that LMX, having been rated by the subordinate in their study, could also be categorized as a subordinate 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.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research questions are:
(1) Are low performers more likely to become victims of abusive supervision?
(2) Among the employees abused by their supervisors, will their attributions of
the supervisors’ abusive motive affect the relationship between abusive
supervision and their consecutive job performance?
Abusive supervision has been linked to employees job performance (for a review, see Martinko et al., 2013). However, a number of researchers have suggested that a reverse causation may exist, i.e., poor performance may cause abusive supervision
20
(Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000). Tepper (2000) argues that researchers are ignoring potential theoretical alternatives to origins of perceptions of abusive supervision. One thought might be the effect of reverse causation where performance can be determined by causes other than the result of abusive supervision. I hence hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: Low job performers are more likely to become victims of abusive
supervision than high job performers.
As of today, only a handful of studies have examined the effect of abusive supervision on employee job performance. Generally, these studies suggest that abusive supervision perceptions are consistently negatively related to job performance. These studies have used supervisor rated organizational behavior and subordinate performance as dependent variables. None has looked at objective performance. Also few has examined individual differences as moderators.
Prior research on abusive supervision has implied two separate types of motives may be associated with supervisory abuse: performance promotion and injury initiation
(Tepper, 2007). Thus on one hand, leaders may mistreat their subordinates to enhance subordinate performance; on the other hand, leaders may exercise abusive supervision to purposefully harm subordinates. Research by Liu et al. (2012) looked at the contingent effects of team leader-attributed performance promotion motives and injury initiation motives.
21
Tepper (2000) posits that supervisors engage in abusive behavior usually to accomplish a purpose. Abusive supervisors may mistreat their subordinates to accomplish objects such as to elicit high performance (Tepper, 2007). This can reflect the unexplored idea that abusive supervisors may mistreat subordinates to accomplish objectives other than causing harm. For example, abusive supervisors may evoke certain mistreating behaviors to promote a higher performance. Subordinates’ attribution of the supervisors’ intention of abusing them may affect their job performance.
Hypothesis 2a: Abusive supervision is positively related to employee job
performance when employees attribute supervisors’ abusive motive to
performance promotion motives
Hypothesis 2b: Abusive supervision is negatively related to employee job
performance when employees attribute supervisors’ abusive motive to injury
initiation motives.
22
CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Participants and Procedure
Workers currently employed full-time in the finance industry were invited to participate in this research study by completing a secure, online survey. The participants were identified as both supervisors and subordinates. Each was given the option to complete or not complete the entire survey.
First, an email was sent to the subordinates that included a link to the informed consent page followed by the survey (Appendix A). Perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ behaviors as well as their personal helping behaviors were assessed. The email reach a pool of approximately 500 employees. Of these individuals, 215 of the respondents completed the survey. I excluded those with missing data, and the final sample size is 196. They were given an allotted amount of five days to provide their responses and were sent a reminder email on day five.
Of the 196 participants, the average worker work 40 hours per week in all departments that spanned over the finance industry. On average, participants have been employed by their current organization for roughly 2 years.
Measures
Abusive supervision. Abusive supervision was measured with a 5-item shortened version of Tepper’s (2000) Abusive Supervision scale. Sample item includes “My supervisor ridicules me”. Responses were measured using a 7-point frequency scale
23 ranging from 1 = he/she never uses this behavior to 7 = he/she uses this behavior always.
An acceptable internal consistency reliability was found across the five items (α = .95).
Performance promotion motives. Performance promotion motives were measured with a
5-item scale developed by Liu and colleagues (2012). A sample item includes “Desire to push me to work harder.” Responses were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An acceptable internal consistency reliability was found across the five items (α = .88).
Injury initiation motives. Injury initiation motives were measured with a 5-item scale developed by Liu and colleagues (2012). A sample item includes “Desire to hurt my feelings” Responses were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An acceptable internal consistency reliability was found across the five items (α = .85).
Job performance. Job performance was measured at two point times. At time 1, job performance was measured using the number of loan sold in the month before the survey administration. At time 2, job performance was measured using the number of loans sold in the month after the survey administration.
Control Variables. I controlled for gender, team #, and years of experience with the supervisor.
24
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
I tested the hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression. A block of control variables were entered into the first step of the regression model, followed by abusive supervision in step two, performance promotion motive and injury initiation motive in step three, and a block of attributes x abusive supervision interaction terms in step four.
The attributes and abusive supervision variables were centered to minimize problems of multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001); interaction terms were created using the centered variables.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the zero-order correlations among variables.
I expected that employees’ performance in the previous month would be negatively related to employees’ report of their immediate supervisors’ abusive supervision (Hypothesis 1). In step one of the regression model the block of control variables explained a small and non-significant amount of variance in abusive supervision (R2 = .04, F = 2.98, ns). The addition of the objective job performance in the previous month in step two explained a small and non-significant amount of incremental variance (ΔR2= .02, F = 2.05, ns). Therefore, I concluded that Hypotheses 1 was not supported. Results are summarized in Table 2.
Hypotheses 2a suggested that for employees who made performance promotion motive, abusive supervision would be positively related to job performance in the
25 consequential month. In step one of the regression model, the block of control variables did not explain any variance in job performance (R2 = .00, F = .13, ns). In step two, the block of abusive supervision also did not explain any amount of incremental variance
(ΔR2 = .00, F = .20, ns). I then entered performance promotion motive into the same regression model. Performance promotion motive explained a small but non-significant amount of incremental variance in job performance (ΔR2 = .01, F = .31, ns). I then added the abusive supervision x performance promotion motive interaction term into step four.
The block of interaction term explained a small and non-significant amount of incremental variance (ΔR2 = .02, F =.51, ns). Results are summarized in Table 3.
Hypotheses 2b suggested that for employees who made injury initiation motive, abusive supervision would be negatively related to job performance in the consequential month. In step one of the regression model, the block of control variables did not explain any variance in job performance (R2 = .00, F = .13, ns). In step two, the block of abusive supervision also did not explain any amount of incremental variance (ΔR2 = .00, F = .20, ns). I then entered injury initiation motive into the same regression model. Injury initiation motive explained a small but non-significant amount of incremental variance in job performance (ΔR2 = .01, F = .33, ns). I then added the abusive supervision x injury initiation motive interaction term into step four. The block of interaction term explained a small and significant amount of incremental variance (ΔR2 = .02, F = .87, p < .5). Results are summarized in Table 3.
Next, I graphed the abusive supervision x injury initiation motive interaction following procedures suggested by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). Results
26 indicate that for employees who made high injury initiation motive attribution, abusive supervision was positively related to job performance. In contrast, for employees who made low injury initiation motive attribution, abusive supervision was not related to job performance. This is opposite to my hypothesis. Results are depicted in Figure 1. Thus, I concluded that Hypotheses 3 was not supported.
27
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Implications
This study contributes to the abusive supervision literature by extending previous research in the following ways. First, this research explores how such abusive behavior is related to subordinates’ attributions of mistreatment. It enhances the role of negative aspects of leadership in the development of subordinate performance. Past research concerning the link between leadership and performance has exclusively concentrated on identifying positive behaviors that may stimulate performance. Consequently, the influence on performance of negative leader behaviors, which has been found to occur frequently in organizational contexts, has generally been left unexplored. My research responds to scholars’ call for more evaluation on the link between subordinates’ attributions of abusive supervision and job performance.
Second, I extend previous research on abusive supervision and subordinates’ attributions and the outcomes of experiencing perceived injustice. My findings provide some evidence that employees who made high injury initiation motive attribution, abusive supervision was positively related to job performance. In contrast, for employees who made low injury initiation motive attribution, abusive supervision was not related to job performance.
28
Practical Implications
The current findings have important practical implications. My research brings implications for practice. I have shown that abusive supervision renders subordinates’ attributions of supervisor mistreatment and its harm on performance. This result should constitute as a warning for organizational practices. Human resources departments should enforce proper policies that omit negative behaviors in regards to abusive supervision.
Another implication of my research relates directly to subordinates’ attributions regarding leaders’ abusive behaviors. I found that subordinates’ judgments about why leader abuse them either exacerbate or mitigate the effects of both effects of abusive supervision: performance motivation or injury initiation. Nevertheless, my research indicates that even with performance enhancing motives, abusive supervision still prevents an increase in performance. Therefore, to encourage employee performance, organizational leaders should exercise transformational leadership which has been shown to be positively associated with employee performance (Lin et al., 2012).
Limitations and Future Research
As with any empirical study, mine has several limitations that point for the need for future research and evaluation. Tepper (2007) suggested that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive behaviors might involve a categorization scheme that is more complex than “abusive” or “not abusive.” He noted that targets of abuse might differentiate between different types of abusive behavior and that their reactions might be influenced by their categorization of the behavior. So the first limitation exists as I did
29 not empirically test subordinates’ attributions towards specific or categorical behaviors.
My center model revolved around abusive supervision as an entire entity. My results may have proved be variant with this proposed models’ potential outcomes. I argue a need to further evaluation multidimensionality of subordinate attributions’ of abusive leadership behaviors.
Second, although I draw on the concept that low job performers are more likely to become victims of abusive supervision than high job performers, my results prove to be insignificant. To further the understanding, scholars should extend my research by testing whether supervisors’ attributions towards low job performers affects the risk of those supervisors engaging in misbehavior as a means of punishment or motivation.
In conclusion, there still has yet to be much progress in the consideration of alternative explanations for the outcomes associated with subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision.
30
Table 1: Zero-order Correlations Among Variables
Variable Gender Team Years with Performance Injury Perform Perform # Manager Motivation Attribution OCT NOV Attribution 1. Gender 2. Tenwsuper -.016 3. Abusive -.170* - Supervision .054 4. Performance -.193** .043 .340** Motivation Attribution 5. Injury -.040 .037 .228** .443** Attribution 6. PerformOCT -.060 -.048 -.066 -.013 .036 7. PerformNOV -.035 -.004 -.036 .067 .049 .628** *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
31
Table 2: Regression Analysis – Previous Month’s Job Performance and Abusive Supervision
Step 1 β Step 2 β Gender -.16 -.17 Team # -.07 -.07 Years with Manager (Employee) -.05 -.06 CSE -.08* R2 .04 .04 F 2.05 2.05 R2 .00 * p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. N = 196.
32
Table 3: Interaction between Abusive Supervision, Performance Promotion Motive, and Injury Initiation Motive in Relation to Job Performance in the Following Month
Job Performance Job Performance Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 β Step 1 Gender -.04 -.05 -.04 -.04 -.04 -.05 -.05 -.06 Team # -.17 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.17 -.02 -.01 -.01 Years .00 .00 .00 -.00 .00 .00 -.00 .00 with Manag er Step 2 AS -.05 -.047 .10 -.05 -.06 -.20 Step 3 PPM .07 .02 IIM .07 .10 Step 4 AS x -.18 PPM AS x .20* IIM R2 .00 .00 .01 .02 .00 .00 .01 .03 F .13 .20 .31 .51 .13 .20 .34 .94 R2 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01 .01* * p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. N = 196. Note. Gender (male = 1, female = 2); AS = Abusive Supervision; PPM = Performance Promotion Motive; IIM = Injury Initiation Motive; AS x PPM = Abusive Supervision x Performance Promotion Motive; AS x IIM = Abusive Supervision x Injury Initiation Motive.
33
Figure 1: Interaction between Abusive Supervision and Injury Initiation Motive in Relation to Job Performance in the Following Month
34
Figure 2: Employees Attribution of Leaders’ Engagement in Abusive Supervision Behavior
Results for a study that was conducted in September, 2014 to assess subordinates’ attributions of the motivation behind abusive supervision. The survey consisted of 6-open ended questions that evaluated why employees felt supervisors engaged in abusive behavior, excluding physical contact. An email with the survey link: SurveyMonkey.com was sent out to all 500 employees of one company in the finance industry. They were given 1 week to complete it. The final responders were made up of 100 full-time employees that were scattered among the many different departments of this specific company. The results ultimately lead to my divulgence into the literature reviewing the link between abusive supervision and subordinate job performance.
35
Appendices
36
Appendix A
Email to Employee Participants
Subject Line: Thesis Research Survey
Link to survey: [link provided by Survey Monkey]
Hello and thank you for considering participation in this research project!
The purpose of this study is to examine the motivations behind unethical leadership. The media’s interest in recent corporate scandals highlights the importance society places on ethical behavior in organizations. This study is in an effort to understand what motivates managers to engage in abusive supervision behavior.
You will be asked to fill out a closed-question short survey. The surveys will be posted online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Subordinate_1 and will not have access to any of your survey responses. Neither the researcher nor surveymonkey.com will have access to any identifying information about you. You will only fill out the survey once and completion of the survey will take about 10 minutes. You may skip questions or stop at any time. If you choose to stop participation, no information about you will be collected from your supervisor nor will any of your information be connected.
This procedure is completely safe. The identity of you will never be revealed.
Results will be reported in an aggregate manner such that no individual’s responses can be identified. Participation in this program of research will remain completely confidential.
37
By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in the research.
Thank you so much again for taking the time to aid in my research and further my education.
38
Appendix B
Subordinate Survey
* Survey of Leadership & Workplace Behavior
Welcome to the Survey of Leadership & Workplace Behavior. If you choose to participate, you will receive a single survey that will take approximately 5 minutes of your time to complete. The survey will ask about both positive and negative factors associated with your employment. Please proceed with the survey.
You will be given an identification code (“your ID”) and please enter your ID in the box provided in both surveys. This is a procedure to ensure confidentiality.
All of your answers are private and will not be shared with anyone. Your responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used. However, no absolute guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data. Your data will be compared to the data of other individuals who complete the survey. We will present the research results as trends and overall averages. Your name will not be used to identify you. Also, you may choose to stop your participation at any time.
If you would like more information about this research study, you may contact Ashley
Goodwill by e-mail at [email protected] or Dr. Ping Shao at [email protected].
39
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Please select your choice below:
[ ] Yes, I would like to complete the survey.
[ ] No, I do not want to complete the survey.
Page 2. Decline Page
You have chosen not to participate at this time. If you accidentally selected to not participate and would like to go back, select the 'GO BACK' button below.
If you simply do not wish to participate, you may end your participation by selecting the
'EXIT' button below.
[ ] Go back
[ ] Exit
Page 3.
Please enter your ID number below.
[ ]
40
Page 3
Before answering the following questions, please think about your immediate supervisor.
During the time you’ve been working with your current immediate supervisor, have you been in a situation where your supervisor:
Always = 7
Very Frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Very Rarely
Never = 1
1. Your supervisor ridicules you.
2. Your supervisor tells you your thoughts or feelings are stupid.
3. Your supervisor puts you down in front of others.
4. Your supervisor makes negative comments about you to others.
5. Your supervisor tells you you’re incompetent.
Abusive supervision means the sustained display of hostile, verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact. To what extent, do you agree that the following may be the reason for or cause of your supervisor’s behaviors toward you, which could be considered abusive?
Strongly disagree (1) – Strongly agree (5) N/A (0)
41
1. Desire to elicit high performance from me.
2. Desire to send me messages that mistakes will not be tolerated.
3. Desire to alert me of my mistakes and problems.
4. Desire to push me to work harder.
5. Desire to stimulate me to meet my performance goals.
6. Desire to cause injury on me.
7. Desire to hurt my feelings.
8. Desire to harm my reputation.
9. Desire to make me feel bad about myself.
10. Desire to sabotage me at work.
Page 4
Instructions - The sentences below describe strategies that someone may use to achieve goals in life. Please use the rating scale to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Please answer honestly, as your responses will be used only for research purposes.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither disagree nor agree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
42
7 = strongly agree
1. In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life.
2. I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibilities and obligations.
3. I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations.
4. I often think about the person I am afraid I might become in the future.
5. I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future.
6. I typically focus on the success I hope to achieve in the future.
7. I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my career goals.
8. I often think about how I will achieve career success.
9. I often imagine myself experiencing bad things that I fear might happen to me.
10. I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life.
11. I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains.
12. My major goal right now is to achieve my career ambitions.
13. My major goal right now is to avoid becoming a career failure.
14. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations.
15. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be – to fulfill my duties, responsibilities, and obligations.
16. In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes in my life.
17. I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I hope will happen to me.
18. Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure.
43
Page 5
Before answering the following questions, please think about your immediate supervisor.
During the time you’ve been working with your current immediate supervisor, have you been in a situation where your supervisor:
(1 = never, 7 = always)
1. Your supervisor ridicules your coworker(s).
2. Your supervisor tells your coworker(s) their thoughts or feelings are stupid.
3. Your supervisor puts your coworker(s) down in front of others.
4. Your supervisor makes negative comments about your coworker(s) to others.
5. Your supervisor tells your coworker(s) they’re incompetent.
Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements.
1 = ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ to 5 = ‘‘Strongly Agree’’
1. It generally pays to let others do more for you than you do for them.
2. When I help someone, I often find myself thinking about what is in it for me.
3. The most realistic policy is to take more from others than you give.
4. In the long run, it is better to accept favors than to do favors for others.
5. You should give help only when it benefits you.
6. You should only help someone if that person will help you in the future.
7. How many favors you do for someone should depend on how many favors they do for you.
8. I feel used when people ask favors of me.
44
9. You should not bend over backward to help another person.
10. People who act nicely towards others are often just trying to get something.
Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements at work.
1 = not at all; 2 = slightly; 3 = somewhat; 4 = mostly; 5 = very much
1. I am concerned about my own needs and interests.
2. My personal goals and aspirations are important to me.
3. I consider my own wishes and desires to be relevant.
4. I am concerned about the needs and interests of others such as my colleagues.
5. The goals and aspirations of colleagues are important to me.
6. I consider others’ wishes and desires to be relevant.
Page 6
Before answering the following questions, please think about the DIVISION you are working in right now. Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither disagree nor agree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
45
7 = strongly agree
1. Being team oriented
2. Sharing information freely
3. Being people oriented
4. Fairness
5. Being supportive
6. Developing friends at work
7. Collaboration
8. Being results oriented
9. Being competitive
10. Achievement oriented
11. Higher performance expectations
12. Being aggressive
13. Demanding
Page 7
Tell us about yourself
What is your sex?
______Male
______Female
46
What is your race/ethnicity?
_____Hispanic or Latino
_____White (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Black or African-American (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino
_____Two or More Races (Please Specify)
______
How old are you?
_____
Please indicate your highest level of education.
High School
Some College
2 year degree
4 year degree
Post Graduate Education
Please indicate the number of years that you have worked with your current company:
______
47
Please indicate the number of years that you have worked full-time:
Less than 1 year of full-time work experience
1 – 2 years of full-time work experience
2 – 5 years of full-time work experience
5 - 10 years of full-time work experience
More than 10 years of full-time work experience
Please indicate the number of years that you have been working with your current supervisor: ______.
Page 8 Survey Conclusion
Survey Completed!
Thank you for your participation.
We appreciate that you have taken the time to help us with this research. If you would like more information about this research, you can contact Ashley Goodwill by e-mail at [email protected].
To exit close the window.
48
Appendix C
Supervisor Survey
* Survey of Leadership & Workplace Behavior
Welcome to the Survey of Leadership & Workplace Behavior. You will be asked to respond to questions about the behavior of employees in your supervised team. If you choose to participate, you will receive a single survey that will take approximately 5 minutes of your time to complete.
You will be given an identification code (“your ID”) and please enter your ID in the box provided in the next page. You will also be provided with a list of your followers
(subordinates) names in your supervised team together with their identification codes
(“employee ID”). Please enter their employee IDs in the space provided in the survey and rate their behavior. This is a procedure to ensure confidentiality.
All of your answers are private and will not be shared with anyone. Your responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used. However, no absolute guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data. Your data will be compared to the data of other individuals who complete the survey. We will present the research results as trends and overall averages. Your name or your employees’ names
49 will not be used to identify you or your employees. Also, you may choose to stop your participation at any time.
If you would like more information about this research study, you may contact Ashley
Goodwill by e-mail at [email protected] or Dr. Ping Shao by email at [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your participation!
By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in the research.
Please select your choice below:
[ ] Yes, I would like to complete the survey.
[ ] No, I do not want to complete the survey.
Page 2. Decline Page
You have chosen not to participate at this time. If you accidentally selected to not participate and would like to go back, select the 'GO BACK' button below.
If you simply do not wish to participate, you may end your participation by selecting the
'EXIT' button below.
[ ] Go back
[ ] Exit
50
Page 3.
Please enter your ID number below.
[ ]
Page 3
Please rate each subordinate in your team. In the first row, please enter each subordinate’s employee ID. In its respective column, please indicate how strongly you agree with the statements for each subordinate.
Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Employee ID Statements
Helping others who have been absent.
Helping others who have heavy work loads
Assisting supervisor with his/her work (when not asked).
Going out of way to help new employee
51
Taking a personal interest in other employees.
Passing along information to coworkers.
Page 4
Tell us about yourself
What is your sex?
______Male
______Female
What is your race/ethnicity?
_____Hispanic or Latino
_____White (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Black or African-American (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino)
_____American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino
_____Two or More Races (Please Specify)
______
52
How old are you?
_____
Please indicate your highest level of education.
High School
Some College
2 year degree
4 year degree
Post Graduate Education
Please indicate the number of years that you have worked with your current company:
______
Please indicate the number of years that you have worked full-time:
Less than 1 year of full-time work experience
1 – 2 years of full-time work experience
2 – 5 years of full-time work experience
5 - 10 years of full-time work experience
More than 10 years of full-time work experience
Please indicate the number of years that you have been a full-time supervisor:
______.
53
Page 5 Survey Conclusion
Survey Completed!
Thank you for your participation.
We appreciate that you have taken the time to help us with this research. If you would like more information about this research, you can contact Ashley Goodwill by e-mail at [email protected].
To exit close the window.
54
References
Aquino, Karl, and Kai Lamertz. "A Relational Model of Workplace Victimization: Social
Roles and Patterns of Victimization in Dyadic Relationships." Journal of Applied
Psychology 89.6 (2004): 1023-034.
Aryee, Samuel, Zhen Xiong Chen, Li-Yun Sun, and Yaw A. Debrah. "Antecedents and
Outcomes of Abusive Supervision: Test of a Trickle-down Model." Journal of
Applied Psychology 92.1 (2007): 191-201.
Aryee, Samuel, Li-Yun Sun, Zhen Xiong George Chen, and Yaw A. Debrah. "Abusive
Supervision and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Emotional
Exhaustion and the Moderating Role of Work Unit Structure." Management and
Organization Review 4.3 (2008): 393-411.
Bowling, Nathan A., and Jesse S. Michel. "Why Do You Treat Me Badly? The Role of
Attributions regarding the Cause of Abuse in Subordinates' Responses to Abusive
Supervision." Work & Stress 25.4 (2011): 309-20.
Burke, Ronald J., and Cary L. Cooper. Research Companion to Corruption in
Organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009.
Burton, James P., and Jenny M. Hoobler. "Aggressive Reactions to Abusive Supervision:
The Role of Interactional Justice and Narcissism." Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology 52.4 (2011): 389-98.
Burton, James P., Jenny M. Hoobler, and Melinda L. Scheuer. "Supervisor Workplace
Stress and Abusive Supervision: The Buffering Effect of Exercise." Journal of
Business and Psychology 27.3 (2012): 271-79.
55
Bushman, Brad J., Angelica M. Bonacci, William C. Pedersen, Eduardo A. Vasquez, and
Norman Miller. "Chewing on It Can Chew You Up: Effects of Rumination on
Triggered Displaced Aggression." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
88.6 (2005): 969-83.
Carlson, Dawn S., Merideth Ferguson, Pamela L. Perrewé, and Dwayne Whitten. "The
Fallout From Abusive Supervision: An Examination Of Subordinates And Their
Partners." Personnel Psychology 64.4 (2011): 937-61.
Carlson, D. S., M. Ferguson, K. M. Kacmar, J. G. Grzywacz, and D. Whitten. "Pay It
Forward: The Positive Crossover Effects of Supervisor Work--Family
Enrichment." Journal of Management 37.3 (2011): 770-89.
Chandler, Diane J. "The Perfect Storm of Leaders' Unethical Behavior: A Conceptional
Framework." International Journal of Leadership Studies 5.1 (2009): 69-93.
Chi, Shu-Cheng Steve, and Shin-Guang Liang. "When Do Subordinates'
Emotion-regulation Strategies Matter? Abusive Supervision, Subordinates'
Emotional Exhaustion, and Work Withdrawal." The Leadership Quarterly 24.1
(2013): 125-37.
Ciulla, Joanne B. Ethics, the Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum, 1998. Print.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56
Cropanzano, Russell, Deborah E. Rupp, and Zinta S. Byrne. "The Relationship of
Emotional Exhaustion to Work Attitudes, Job Performance, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors." Journal of Applied Psychology 88.1 (2003): 160-69.
Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, Ivanna K. Guthrie, and Mark Reiser. "Dispositional
Emotionality and Regulation: Their Role in Predicting Quality of Social
Functioning." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78.1 (2000): 136-57.
Graen G.B., Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in Operationalizing and Comparing
Leadership Constructs. The Leadership Quarterly. 21, 563-575.
Harvey, Paul, Jason Stoner, Wayne Hochwarter, and Charles Kacmar. "Coping with
Abusive Supervision: The Neutralizing Effects of Ingratiation and Positive Affect
on Negative Employee Outcomes." The Leadership Quarterly 18.3 (2007): 264-
80.
Harris, Kenneth J., Kent Marett, and Ranida B. Harris. "An Investigation of the Impact of
Abusive Supervision on Technology End-users." Computers in Human Behavior
29.6 (2013): 2480-489.
Harris, Kenneth J., K. Michele Kacmar, and Suzanne Zivnuska. "An Investigation of
Abusive Supervision as a Predictor of Performance and the Meaning of Work as a
Moderator of the Relationship." The Leadership Quarterly 18.3 (2007): 252-63.
Science Direct. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
Harris, Kenneth J., Paul Harvey, Ranida B. Harris, and Melissa Cast. "An Investigation
of Abusive Supervision, Vicarious Abusive Supervision, and Their Joint
Impacts." The Journal of Social Psychology 153.1 (2013): 38-50.
57
Harvey, Paul, Jason Stoner, Wayne Hochwarter, and Charles Kacmar. "Coping with
Abusive Supervision: The Neutralizing Effects of Ingratiation and Positive Affect
on Negative Employee Outcomes." The Leadership Quarterly 18.3 (2007): 264-
80.
Hoobler, Jenny M., and Daniel J. Brass. "Abusive Supervision and Family Undermining
as Displaced Aggression." Journal of Applied Psychology 91.5 (2006): 1125-133.
Jennings, Marianne. The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse: How to Spot Moral
Meltdowns in Companies-- before It's Too Late. New York: St. Martin's, 2006.
Jex, Steve M. Stress and Job Performance : Theory, Research, and Implications for
Managerial Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998.
Kellerman, Barbara. Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It
Matters. Boston: Harvard Business School, 2004.
Kiazad, Kohyar, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Christian Kiewitz,
and Robert L. Tang. "In Pursuit of Power: The Role of Authoritarian Leadership
in the Relationship between Supervisors’ Machiavellianism and Subordinates’
Perceptions of Abusive Supervisory Behavior." Journal of Research in
Personality 44.4 (2010): 512-19.
Lian, Huiwen, D. Lance Ferris, and Douglas J. Brown. "Does Power Distance Exacerbate
or Mitigate the Effects of Abusive Supervision? It Depends on the Outcome."
Journal of Applied Psychology 97.1 (2012): 107-23.
58
Lin, Weipeng, Lei Wang, and Shuting Chen. "Abusive Supervision and Employee
Well-Being: The Moderating Effect of Power Distance Orientation." Applied
Psychology 62.2 (2013): 308-29.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. 2012. The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation
of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 55(5): 1187-1212.
Martinko, Mark J., Paul Harvey, Jeremy R. Brees, and Jeremy Mackey. "A Review of
Abusive Supervision Research." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34.S1
(2013): S120-137.
Mawritz, Mary B., David M Mayer, Jenny M. Hoobler, Sandy J. Wayne, and
Sophia V. Marinova. "A Trickle-Down Model Of Abusive Supervision."
Personnel Psychology 65.2 (2012): 325-57.
Mitchell, Douglas E. Work Orientation and Job Performance : The Cultural Basis of
Teaching Rewards and Incentives. Albany, N.Y.: State U of New York, 1987.
Namie, Gary, and Ruth Namie. The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt
and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job. Naperville, IL: Source, 2000. Print.
Organisation Behaviour. N.p.: New Age International, 2004.
Rafferty, Alannah E., and Simon Lloyd D. Restubog. "The Influence of Abusive
Supervisors on Followers' Organizational Citizenship Behaviours: The Hidden
Costs of Abusive Supervision." British Journal of Management 22.2 (2011): 270-
85.
59
Safstrom, My, and Hartig, Terry. "Psychological Detachment in the Relationship
between Job Stressors and Strain." Behavioral Sciences 3.3 (2013): 418-33.
Schminke, Marshall. Managerial Ethics: Managing the Psychology of Morality. New
York: Routledge, 2010.
Scotter, James R. Van, and Stephan J. Motowidlo. "Interpersonal Facilitation and Job
Dedication as Separate Facets of Contextual Performance." Journal of Applied
Psychology 81.5 (1996): 525-31.
Taylor, Amy M. "Cultivating an Engaged Workforce: The Roles of Leader Personality,
Motivation, and Leadership Style." Scholar Commons (2012): n. pag. University
of South Florida.
Tepper, Bennett J., Christine A. Henle, Lisa Schurer Lambert, Robert A. Giacalone, and
Michelle K. Duffy. "Abusive Supervision and Subordinates' Organization
Deviance." Journal of Applied Psychology 93.4 (2008): 721-32.
Tepper, Bennett J., Jon C. Carr, Denise M. Breaux, Sharon Geider, Changya Hu, and Wei
Hua. "Abusive Supervision, Intentions to Quit, and Employees’ Workplace
Deviance: A Power/dependence Analysis." Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 109.2 (2009): 156-67.
Tepper, Bennett J. "Consequences Of Abusive Supervision." Academy of Management
Journal 43.2 (2000): 178-90.
Tepper, Bennett. J., "Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis,
and Research Agenda." Journal of Management 33.3 (2007): 261-89.
60
Tepper, Bennett J., Sherry E. Moss, and Michelle K. Duffy. "Predictors Of Abusive
Supervision: Supervisor Perceptions Of Deep-Level Dissimilarity, Relationship
Conflict, And Subordinate Performance." Academy of Management Journal 54.2
(2011): 279-94.
Thau, Stefan, and Marie S. Mitchell. "Self-gain or Self-regulation Impairment? Tests of
Competing Explanations of the Supervisor Abuse and Employee Deviance
Relationship through Perceptions of Distributive Justice." Journal of Applied
Psychology 95.6 (2010): 1009-031.
Thau, Stefan, Rebecca J. Bennett, Marie S. Mitchell, and Mary Beth Marrs. "Download
PDFs."How Management Style Moderates the Relationship between Abusive
Supervision and Workplace Deviance: An Uncertainty Management Theory
Perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Jan. 2009.
Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
Vansteenkiste, Maarten, Joke Simons, Willy Lens, Kennon M. Sheldon, and Edward L.
Deci. "Motivating Learning, Performance, and Persistence: The Synergistic
Effects of Intrinsic Goal Contents and Autonomy-Supportive Contexts." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 87.2 (2004): 246-60.
Zellars, Kelly L., Bennett J. Tepper, and Michelle K. Duffy. "Abusive Supervision and
Subordinates' Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Journal of Applied
Psychology 87.6 (2002): 1068-076.