Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 4, 1159–1168 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs Marie S. Mitchell and Maureen L. Ambrose University of Central Florida In this study, the authors examine the relationship between abusive supervision and employee workplace deviance. The authors conceptualize abusive supervision as a type of aggression. They use work on retaliation and direct and displaced aggression as a foundation for examining employees’ reactions to abusive supervision. The authors predict abusive supervision will be related to supervisor-directed deviance, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance. Additionally, the authors examine the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. They hypothesized that the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance would be stronger when individuals hold higher negative reciprocity beliefs. The results support this hypotheses. The implications of the results for understanding destructive behaviors in the workplace are examined. Keywords: abusive supervision, workplace deviance, reciprocity In the last decade, there has been increased interest in harmful standing employee reactions. From a justice perspective, employ- or destructive behaviors in organizations. Much of this research ees react to the perceived unfairness of the abusive supervisor’s focuses on deviant behaviors of employees. (See Bennett & Rob- behavior. When employees feel they are treated unfairly, positive inson, 2003, for a review.) However, recently, research has exam- attitudes and behavior suffer (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 1998). ined destructive behaviors managers commit—specifically, abu- Researchers also have used reactance theory as a foundation for sive supervision (e.g. Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & understanding employee reactions to abusive supervision (Zellars Ensley, 2004; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). In this article, we et al., 2002). Reactance theory suggests that individuals strive to consider the relationship between these two types of destructive maintain personal control (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wright & behavior. Brehm, 1982). Researchers suggest that employees dealing with an Recent research by Tepper and his colleagues (Tepper, 2000; abusive supervisor usually feel little or no control. As a result, Tepper et al., 2001, 2004; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002) has individuals engage in behavior to restore personal autonomy (e.g., focused attention on abusive supervision. Tepper (2000) defined decrease organizational citizenship behaviors; Zellars et al., 2002). abusive supervision as the “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent Both of these approaches are useful for understanding individ- to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of uals’ reactions to abusive supervision. However, they do not hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical con- 1 capture the uniquely aggressive and hostile behavior that defines tact” (p. 178). Ashforth (1997) described abusive managers as abusive supervision. In this article, we conceptualize abusive su- those who callously and arbitrarily use their power and authority to pervision as a type of aggression (behaviors perceived by the mistreat employees. Abusive supervisors are known to use derog- employee as intentionally harmful; Baron, 2005). We use work on atory names, yell and scream, intimidate, withhold needed infor- retaliation and direct and displaced aggression as a foundation for mation, and humiliate and ridicule their employees (Keashly, examining employees’ reactions to abusive supervision. We inves- 1998). Empirical research usually examines abuse from the sub- tigate the relationship between abusive supervision and employee ordinate’s perspective (Ashforth, 1997; Tepper, 2000; Tepper, deviance directed at the supervisor, the organization, and other Eisenbach, Kirby, & Potter, 1998; Zellars et al., 2002), and we take individuals. that perspective in this research. Further, we consider the moderating effects of negative reci- Research on abusive supervision has generally taken either an procity beliefs. A negative reciprocity orientation is the tendency organizational justice or a reactance theory approach to under- for an individual to return negative treatment for negative treat- ment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). We suggest individuals with Marie S. Mitchell and Maureen L. Ambrose, Department of Manage- ment, University of Central Florida. We thank Ben Tepper for his generous contributions, specifically data 1 Tepper (2000) also suggests abusive supervision involves indifference, for reducing the Abusive Supervision measure. We also thank Becky for example, speaking rudely to subordinates in order to elicit desired task Bennett, Russell Cropanzano, and Marshall Schminke for their feedback on performance (p. 179). However, most research focuses on the more pro- earlier versions of this article. active, willfully hostile behavior (e.g., Ashforth, 1994, 1997; Bies & Tripp, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marie S. 1998a, 1998c; Namie & Namie, 2000). Indeed, researchers often refer to Mitchell, who is now at the Department of Management, University of abusive supervisors as “managerial bullies” (Ashforth, 1994, 1997; Namie Nebraska–Lincoln, P.O. Box 880491, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491. E-mail: & Namie, 2000; Salin, 2001). We focus explicitly on the active hostile [email protected] behavior in this study. 1159 1160 RESEARCH REPORTS stronger negative reciprocity beliefs are more likely to direct deviance and (nonsupervisory) interpersonal deviance as well as deviant behavior toward the perceived source of harm. Thus, in the organizational deviance when considering employee reactions to case of abusive supervision, stronger negative reciprocity beliefs abusive supervision. should be associated with increased deviant behavior directed at the supervisor. In the following sections, we review relevant Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance literature on abusive supervision, employee deviance, and negative reciprocity beliefs. Interpersonal treatment is a driving factor in deviant behavior (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Workplace experiences such as Abusive Supervision frustration, injustices, and threats to self are primary antecedents to employee deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Ashforth (1997) Although abusive supervision is a low base-rate phenomenon, it suggested that abusive supervision promotes feelings of frustra- has notable effects on employee attitudes (Tepper, 2000). Research tion, helplessness, and alienation. Tepper (2000) found that abu- shows that abusive supervision is related to lower levels of satis- sive supervision negatively influences perceptions of justice. Thus, faction, commitment, and justice perceptions, and higher levels of abusive supervision is a likely antecedent of employee deviance. turnover, role conflict, and psychological distress (Ashforth, 1997; As we noted above, we expect abusive supervision will be Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Tepper, 2000). related to employee workplace deviance in two ways. First, em- Fewer research studies have investigated the effects of abusive ployees may respond by directly retaliating against their supervi- supervision on employee behaviors. Two studies by Tepper and sor. Second, employees may engage in “displaced” deviance by colleagues (Tepper et al., 2004; Zellars et al., 2002) suggested that targeting the organization or other individuals. We discuss each of abusive supervision negatively affects organizational citizenship these below. behaviors. Employees subjected to an abusive supervisor engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (Zellars et al., 2002). Supervisor-Directed Deviance Further, abusive supervision also negatively affects how employ- ees perceive the genuineness of their peers’ organizational citizen- Retaliation plays an important role in research on aggression as ship behaviors (Tepper et al., 2004). In addition to decreased well as research on workplace deviance. Retaliation involves the positive behavior, we suggest abusive supervision will increase desire to punish an offender for unwarranted and malicious acts negative behavior, specifically, employee workplace deviance. (Averill, 1982). Retaliation refers to behavior that seeks to “make In considering the relationship between abusive supervision and the wrongdoer pay” for a transgression or event that harms or employee deviance, we found research on aggression and retalia- jeopardizes the victim in some meaningful way (Skarlicki & tion to be useful. This research suggests that interpersonal mis- Folger, 2004, p. 374).2 treatment (like abusive supervision) promotes retaliation and ag- Research on aggression demonstrates individuals may respond gression displaced on other targets. For example, in their study on to the aggressive behavior of others by choosing to retaliate. For injustice and retaliation, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that example, Brown (1968) found severe offensive behavior (social conditions of multiple unfairness (distributive, procedural, and humiliation) resulted in strong retaliatory reactions, even at a interactional) were associated with higher levels of organizational personal cost to the retaliator. Bies and Tripp (1996) found that retaliatory behavior. Notably, these