Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs

Home , Abusive supervision, Social undermining, Workplace aggression, Workplace deviance

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 treatment (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 employees 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 behaviors are characterized by individuals seek revenge against those who harm them. A recent both direct and displaced methods of retaliation (e.g., disobeyed meta-analysis demonstrates that when individuals attribute respon- supervisor’s instructions, left a mess unnecessarily, spread rumors sibility to a harmdoer, they respond with anger and retaliation about coworkers). We suggest employees engage in deviant be- (Rudolph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004). havior to retaliate directly against their abusive supervisor, and Several researchers have focused on investigating antecedents they may also engage in displaced deviant behavior. Moreover, we of retaliation in organizations (e.g., Allred, 1999; Bies & Tripp, expect negative reciprocity beliefs to affect the relationship be- 1998b; Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997; Folger & Baron, 1996; tween abusive supervision and deviance. Skarlicki & Folger, 1997, 2004). Empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals retaliate against perceived injustices (Greenberg & Workplace Deviance Alge, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), threats to identity (Aquino & Douglas, 2003), violations of Workplace deviance is purposeful behavior that violates orga- trust (Bies & Tripp, 1996), and personal offense (Aquino, Tripp, & nizational norms and is intended to harm the organization, its Bies, 2001). When individuals feel they have been mistreated, employees, or both (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Robinson and retaliation is a deliberate, rational response (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Bennett (1995) developed a widely accepted typology of workplace deviance, which categorizes two basic types of deviance: 2 organizational and interpersonal. Organizational deviance is devi- Our use of the term retaliation stems from the aggression literature. In ance directed toward the organization (e.g., shirking hours, pur- organizational research, scholars have also used the term revenge to de- scribe behavior that is intended to punish another for an offense (see, for posefully extending overtime), and interpersonal deviance is de- example, Bies & Tripp, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Additionally, the term viance directed toward individuals (e.g., verbal abuse, sexual retaliation has been used in equal employment opportunity law and the harassment). Recent research suggests it is useful to distinguish whistle-blowing literature, in which retaliation is explicated as behavior between two types of interpersonal deviance: deviant behaviors that seeks to punish an employee who engages in protected behavior targeted against supervisors and those targeted at other individuals (Crockett & Gilmere, 1999). This use describes a specific instance of (Hershcovis et al., 2007). Thus, we investigate supervisor-directed retaliatory behavior. RESEARCH REPORTS 1161

Interpersonal mistreatment is a central component of abusive Hypothesis 1c: Abusive supervision will be positively related supervision, and research indicates employees perceive supervi- to (nonsupervisory) interpersonal deviance. sors as a dominant source of interpersonal mistreatment (Bies, 1999). Supervisors are reported to be the most prominent source of bullying at work (Neuman & Keashly, 2003). Indeed, both theo- Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs retical and empirical research suggests abusive supervision is Retaliation plays an important role in our conceptualization of related to retaliation. For example, Folger (1993) proposed that the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor- supervisors who fail to meet an acceptable standard of demeanor directed deviance. The principle of retaliation emphasizes the promote retaliation. Bies and Tripp (1998b) found that victims of biblical injunction of “a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth abusive bosses directly undermined their bosses in private as well . . . bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25) and is a common theme as openly ridiculed or challenged them. Baron and Neuman (1998) in deviance research (cf. Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Gouldner reported 31.4% of their respondents displayed aggression against a (1960) captured this principle in his negative norm of reciprocity. supervisor and felt justified doing so. Aquino, Tripp, and Bies Reciprocity encompasses quid pro quo behaviors, meaning that (2006) demonstrated that lower level individuals are more likely to something given generates an obligation to return an equivalent seek revenge than higher level individuals. Jones (2003) found that gesture. Most research focuses on positive reciprocity, which interactional injustice from an authority was significantly related promotes stability in relationships through considerate, valued, and to supervisor-directed retaliation. Further, a recent meta-analysis balanced exchanges. Favorable treatment generates favorable by Hershcovis et al. (2007) found that unfair supervisor treatment treatment. was a strong predictor of supervisor-targeted aggression. However, Gouldner (1960) also noted that individuals may In the workplace deviance literature, retaliation is conceptual- endorse a negative norm of reciprocity, under which unfavorable ized as an interpersonal form of deviance (Bennett & Robinson, treatment promotes “not the return of benefits but the return of 2003). By definition, retaliation involves deliberate actions against injuries” (p. 172). Indeed, individuals may be guided by negative a perceived harmdoer. In the case of abusive supervision, these reciprocity beliefs whereby they believe that when someone mis- behaviors would be targeted against the supervisor (i.e., treats them, it is acceptable to retaliate in return (Cropanzano & supervisor-directed deviance). Therefore, we believe abusive su- Mitchell, 2005). Yet, Gouldner suggested that not all victims seek pervision will be associated with supervisor-directed deviance. to retaliate. Some may feel it is acceptable to “turn the other cheek.” Thus, individuals vary in their beliefs about the appropri- Hypothesis 1a: Abusive supervision will be positively related ateness of negative reciprocity. to supervisor-directed deviance. Individuals who endorse negative reciprocity believe retribution is the correct and proper response to unfavorable treatment (Eisen- Displaced Deviance berger, Lynch, & Aselage, 2004). Those who hold strong negative reciprocity beliefs are more likely to seek retaliation than avoid- We also expect that abusive supervision will be related to other ance (McLean Parks, 1998). Those who do not hold strong nega- types of deviance. That is, in addition to targeting the source of the tive reciprocity beliefs are less likely to engage in retaliatory abuse, employees will react toward other targets. They will engage behavior. Indeed, research demonstrates that individuals vary in in deviance directed toward the organization (organizational devi- their beliefs about the appropriateness of negative reciprocity. ance) or individuals other than the supervisor (interpersonal devi- Moreover, individuals’ negative reciprocity beliefs influence be- ance). The theory of displaced aggression guides our thinking here havioral choices (Gallucci & Perugini, 2003; Perugini, Gallucci, (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2003). Research on displaced aggression suggests that individuals who In sum, individuals with strong negative reciprocity beliefs become angry and frustrated by a harmdoer may displace their consider retaliation an appropriate response to negative treatment. aggression on individuals who are not the source of the harm We suggest negative reciprocity beliefs will moderate the relation- (Dollard et al., 1939). Dollard et al. (1939) offered two reasons ship between abusive supervision and employee deviance. How- why individuals displace aggression. First, the harmdoer may not ever, because negative reciprocity is a quid pro quo belief, the be available to retaliate against. Second, the victim may fear focus of retaliation should be the source of the mistreatment (the further retaliation from the harmdoer. Should either of these con- abusive supervisor). Thus, we suggest that for individuals with straints occur, direct retaliation is curbed (Baron, 1971) and ag- stronger negative reciprocity beliefs, the relationship between perceived abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance will gressive behaviors may be redirected or displaced on less powerful be stronger than for those who do not endorse negative reciprocity. or more available targets (e.g., coworkers; Miller, 1941). Thus, However, we do not expect negative reciprocity beliefs to affect retaliation is only one behavior employees may choose to engage the relationship between abusive supervision and deviance toward in as a consequence of perceived abuse; victims may also displace the organization or toward individuals other than the supervisor. their hostilities on others. We suggest that individuals subjected to abusive supervision may displace aggression toward the organiza- 3 tion (i.e., organizational deviance) and individuals other than the 3 Some researchers suggest that individuals may target the organization supervisor (i.e., interpersonal deviance). in an effort to retaliate against a supervisor (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). In our conceptualization, this is still displaced aggres- Hypothesis 1b: Abusive supervision will be positively related sion, because the retaliatory attempt is indirect rather than direct. The target to organizational deviance. of the aggression differs from the source of the harm. 1162 RESEARCH REPORTS

Hypothesis 2: Negative reciprocity beliefs will moderate the deviance, which asked respondents to indicate behaviors targeted relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor- against their current supervisor.5 These items are shown in Ap- directed deviance but will not moderate the relationship be- pendix C. tween abusive supervision and other forms of deviance (or- Negative reciprocity beliefs. Negative reciprocity beliefs were ganizational or interpersonal). Abusive supervision will be assessed with a 14-item measure developed by Eisenberger et al. more strongly related to supervisor-directed deviance when (2004). The measure contains statements concerning the advisabil- individuals more strongly believe in negative reciprocity. ity of retribution for unfavorable treatment. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement on a 7-point scale (1 ϭ strongly ϭ Method agree,7 strongly disagree). Controls. Past research suggests that trait anger influences Sample and Procedure deviant reactions (Eisenberger et al., 2004; Fox & Spector, 1999). Therefore, we controlled for trait anger in our analyses. We used Surveys were distributed to individuals called for jury duty by a the anger subscale of Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression Ques- county circuit court in the Southeastern United States. The re- tionnaire, which assesses the dispositional tendency toward anger searchers addressed potential jurors at the beginning of the day as in everyday life. Participants expressed agreement on a 5-point they waited to learn if they would be required to serve. We scale (1 ϭ very slightly true of me,5ϭ very highly true of me). We explained that the survey had nothing to do with the jury or court controlled for age, because research also suggests that age is system, but rather, that we sought to understand more about related to deviant reactions (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Grasmick & sensitive issues that affect individuals at work. Therefore, we Kobayashi, 2002). Last, we controlled for employees’ tenure with indicated that willing participants had to be currently employed. the supervisor, because research suggests that tenure with the Interested participants picked up surveys from and returned sur- supervisor influences reactions (Bauer & Green, 1996; Wayne, veys to the researcher. Over the course of 8 weeks, 427 individuals Shore, & Liden, 1997). agreed to participate in the study (30.5% response rate). The Social desirability check. In order to assess for socially desir- ϭ average age of the participants was 42.7 years old (SD 11.95); able responses in the deviance, abusive supervision, negative rec- ϭ average company tenure was 8.7 years (SD 8.15), and tenure iprocity beliefs, and trait anger measures, we examined the corre- ϭ with a supervisor was 3.7 years (SD 4.08); 38.3% were currently lation between individual self-reported items to those of social working in supervisory positions; and 56.9% of the sample was desirability. We assessed social desirability with an 18-item short female. version of the Paulhus (1991) measure, which has been used in previous research investigating workplace deviance (Tripp, Bies, Measures & Aquino, 2002). Consistent with previous research (Aquino et al., 1999), we Abusive supervision. We used a shortened 5-item version of eliminated items that correlated greater than .30 with the Paulhus Tepper’s (2000) Abusive Supervision measure. To develop this items. Thus, four negative reciprocity items were eliminated from shortened measure, we performed exploratory and confirmatory the original set: “If a person wants to be your enemy, you should factor analyses on two separate data sets that used the original 15-item measure (N ϭ 741 from Tepper, 2000, and N ϭ 338 from Tepper et al., 2004).4 (See Appendixes A and B for results.) The 4 We thank Ben Tepper for sharing his data with us for these analyses. analyses revealed two distinct factors: One reflected active inter- 5 Although research suggests distinguishing between deviant behaviors personal abuse by the supervisor (e.g., “ridicules me” and “tells me targeted against supervisors and those targeted at other individuals my thoughts and feelings are stupid”). The other reflected more (Hershcovis et al., 2007), the interpersonal deviance measures had not been passive acts of abuse (e.g., “doesn’t give me credit for jobs adapted in this way previously. To ensure that these three measures of requiring a lot of effort”). Because the active dimension is most deviance were distinct, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor consistent with our interest, we used the 5 items representing this analyses. First, we examined a three-factor model that included the three separate deviance measures (interpersonal deviance, organizational devi- factor as our indicator of abusive supervision. Respondents indi- ϭ ance, and supervisor-directed deviance). This model provided an accept- cated their agreement with each item using a 7-point scale (1 able fit to the data, ␹2(374) ϭ 1,689.05, p Ͻ .001, RMSEA ϭ .09, CFI ϭ ϭ strongly agree,7 strongly disagree). .90, NFI ϭ .88. We compared the three-factor model to (a) a two-factor Deviance. We assessed interpersonal and organizational devi- model that combined supervisor-directed deviance and interpersonal deviance with measures developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000). ance into a single interpersonal factor, ␹2(376) ϭ 2,094.32, p Ͻ .001, The measures used a 7-point scale (1 ϭ never,7ϭ daily) and RMSEA ϭ .10, CFI ϭ .88; NFI ϭ .85, (b) a two-factor model that asked respondents to indicate the number of times in the last year combined interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance into a single that they had engaged in the behavior described. Twelve items displaced deviance factor, ␹2(376) ϭ 2,301.37, p Ͻ .001, RMSEA ϭ .11, assessed perceptions of organizational deviance. Respondents CFI ϭ .88, NFI ϭ .85, and (c) a single-factor model that combined all ␹2 ϭ Ͻ were asked to indicate behaviors targeted at the company for deviance items into one deviance factor, (377) 2,522.09, p .001, RMSEA ϭ .12, CFI ϭ .86, NFI ϭ .84. The results of our analysis revealed which they were currently working. Seven items assessed percep- the three-factor model produced a significant improvement in chi-squares tions of interpersonal deviance. Respondents were asked to indi- over the two-factor interpersonal deviance model, ⌬␹2(2) ϭ 405.27, p Ͻ cate behaviors targeted at coworkers. Further, we adapted lan- .001; the two-factor displaced deviance model, ⌬␹2(2) ϭ 612.32, p Ͻ .001; guage from the interpersonal deviance items from both the Bennett and the one-factor model, ⌬␹2(3) ϭ 833.04, p Ͻ .001, suggesting the and Robinson (2000) and Aquino, Lewis, and Bradfield (1999) three-factor model provided a better fit than the alternative models (Schu- measures to generate a 10-item measure of supervisor-directed macker & Lomax, 1996). RESEARCH REPORTS 1163 treat them like an enemy” (r ϭ .37), “If someone treats you badly, suggest the data are not normally distributed. Although ordinary you should treat that person badly in return” (r ϭ .36), “When least squares is robust to nonnormality (Mertler & Vannatta, someone hurts you, you should find a way they won’t know about 2002), we conducted a transformation for negatively skewed data to get even” (r ϭ .37), and “If someone treats me badly, I feel I (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) and also analyzed the transformed should treat them even worse” (r ϭ .39). The Cronbach alpha data. The results of these analyses are consistent with the results coefficient for the negative reciprocity beliefs measure without presented below. these four items was .86. All other items showed low correlations Regression results are provided in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 pro- with social desirability (i.e., r Ͻ .30) and were retained in our poses that abusive supervision will be positively related to (a) analyses. supervisor-directed deviance, (b) organizational deviance, and (c) interpersonal deviance. The results support this hypothesis. Abu- Results sive supervision is positively and significantly related to each type of deviance. Further, trait anger was significantly and positively Measurement Model Results related to supervisor-directed deviance and interpersonal deviance. Additionally, negative reciprocity beliefs were significantly and We conducted confirmatory factor analyses with maximum like- positively related to all types of deviance. lihood estimation to examine the distinctness of the variables. The Hypothesis 2 predicts that negative reciprocity beliefs will mod- measurement model consisted of five factors: abusive supervision, erate the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor- negative reciprocity beliefs, interpersonal deviance, organizational directed deviance, but not the relationship between abusive super- deviance, and supervisor-directed deviance items. The results in- vision and other types of deviance. The results show that the dicated that the five-factor model provided a good fit to the data, Abusive Supervision ϫ Negative Reciprocity interaction was sig- ␹2(1209) ϭ 3,163.63, p Ͻ .001, root-mean-square error of approx- nificantly and positively related to only supervisor-directed devi- imation (RMSEA) ϭ .06, comparative fit index (CFI) ϭ .93, ance. The results support Hypothesis 2. normed fit index (NFI) ϭ .93. RMSEA scores below .08 (Hoyle & Figure 1 shows the negative reciprocity beliefs and abusive Panter, 1995) and CFI and NFI scores above .90 (Bentler & supervision interaction on supervisor-directed deviance. Values Bonnett, 1990; Bollen, 1989) indicate that the indices fall above representing plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean the guidelines for a good fit. We compared the five-factor model were used to generate the plotted regression lines (Cohen et al., to (a) a four-factor model (where organizational and interpersonal 2003). As predicted, the relationship between abusive supervision deviance items were combined into a single “displaced deviance” and supervisor-directed deviance was stronger when individuals factor), ␹2(1214) ϭ 3,916.08, p Ͻ .001, RMSEA ϭ .08, CFI ϭ had higher negative reciprocity beliefs. .91, NFI ϭ .92, (b) a three-factor model (where all deviance items were combined into a single factor), ␹2(1218) ϭ 4,219.28, p Ͻ .001, RMSEA ϭ .08, CFI ϭ .90, NFI ϭ .88, and (c) a single-factor Discussion model, ␹2(1224) ϭ 10,899, p Ͻ .001, RMSEA ϭ .14, CFI ϭ .39, Previous research demonstrates abusive supervision negatively NFI ϭ .78. The five-factor model produced a significant improve- affects employee attitudes and employees’ willingness to engage ment in chi-squares over the four-factor model, ⌬␹2(5) ϭ 752.45, in positive behavior (Tepper et al., 2004; Zellars et al., 2002). The p Ͻ .001; the three-factor model, ⌬␹2(9) ϭ 1,055.65, p Ͻ .001; results of this study show abusive supervision influences employ- and the one-factor model, ⌬␹2(15) ϭ 7,735.91, p Ͻ .001, suggest- ees’ willingness to engage in negative behavior as well. Specifi- ing a better fit than the other models (Schumacker & Lomax, cally, abusive supervision is positively related to all types of 1996). employee deviance. Moreover, the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance is stronger for em- Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ployees with stronger negative reciprocity beliefs. Below we dis- Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and cuss these findings in more detail and the implications for man- reliabilities for the study variables. agers and organizations. Research on workplace deviance suggests that individuals may Results of Tests of the Hypotheses direct their behaviors at individuals or at the organization. We predicted abusive supervision would be related to both direct We used hierarchical regression to assess the hypotheses. Fol- retaliation—supervisor-directed deviance—as well as displaced lowing the recommendation of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken deviant behaviors—deviance targeted at other individuals (co- (2003), we mean centered the predictor variables to reduce mul- workers) and at the organization. Our results support this predic- ticollinearity. Variance inflation factor scores were assessed for tion. Abusive supervisory behavior is associated not only with predictive variables, all of which were well below the 10.0 stan- harm to the source of the abuse but also “collateral” damage to the dard (Ryan, 1997). This indicates that multicollinearity did not organization and others in the workplace. present a biasing problem. In addition to the main effect of abusive supervision on em- It is worth noting the low means for the abusive supervision and ployee deviance behaviors, we also expected negative reciprocity the deviance measures. These means are consistent with those in beliefs would play a role in the relationship. As predicted, the other studies (cf. Aquino et al., 1999; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; results show that negative reciprocity beliefs strengthened the Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2001, 2004). Indeed, abusive super- relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed vision and workplace deviance are low base-rate phenomena (Ben- deviance. Employees with stronger negative reciprocity beliefs nett & Robinson, 2000 and Tepper, 2000). Nevertheless, the means who believed their supervisor was abusive engaged in more 1164 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 1 Summary Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

Variable MSD 12345678

1. Abusive supervision 1.82 1.30 (.89) 2. Negative reciprocity 2.35 1.03 .18 (.86) 3. Supervisor-directed deviance 1.51 0.69 .40 .24 (.82) 4. Organizational deviance 1.66 0.67 .17 .31 .53 (.79) 5. Interpersonal deviance 1.76 0.88 .21 .30 .64 .58 (.82) 6. Trait anger 2.41 0.69 .10 .34 .28 .14 .32 (.92) 7. Age 42.72 11.95 .07 Ϫ.14 Ϫ.16 Ϫ.28 Ϫ.17 .10 — 8. Tenure with supervisor 3.70 4.08 Ϫ.02 Ϫ.02 .03 Ϫ.05 .04 Ϫ.01 .29 —

Note. Internal reliability coefficients (alphas) appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. Correlations greater than .14 are significant at p Ͻ .01 and those greater than .10, at p Ͻ .05, two-tailed. supervisor-directed deviance than individuals who did not endorse theories of frustration-aggression (Dollard et al., 1939) and devi- negative reciprocity. The results also show that negative reciproc- ance. (See Perrowe & Spector, 2002 for a review.) The results of ity beliefs did not significantly influence the relationship between this study suggest that trait anger is differentially related to differ- abusive supervision and other types of deviant behavior (neither ent types of deviance. These results are consistent with Douglas organizational nor interpersonal deviance). Thus, as expected, and Martinko (2001), who have argued that high trait-anger indi- negative reciprocity is significantly related only to the quid pro viduals believe others purposefully and unnecessarily caused them quo behaviors targeted against the abuser. harm. They found that individuals with high trait-anger were more Our results also reveal some unexpected findings. First, there inclined to feel vengeful and make hostile attributions about other was a significant main effect for negative reciprocity beliefs on all persons. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis on workplace aggres- types of deviance. Whereas the interaction findings support the sion found that trait anger was more strongly related to interper- belief that negative reciprocity promotes retribution, the main sonal than organizational forms of aggression (Hershcovis et al., effect indicates that individuals who hold strong negative reciproc- 2007). Similarly, we found that trait anger is related only to ity beliefs also reported greater levels of all types of deviance. This deviance directed at individuals. Thus, it seems that interpersonal finding is consistent with Eisenberger et al. (2004), who have interaction and how it is interpreted by individuals with high trait argued that individuals with strong negative reciprocity beliefs anger is important to understanding trait anger and behavior. hold a catharsis approach to aggression and get satisfaction from The results of this study have important implications for re- aggressing against any target, whether guilty or innocent. Thus, searchers and managers. Most notable, the results suggest that negative reciprocity beliefs may also indicate a general propensity abusive supervision is positively associated with workplace devi- toward workplace deviance. ance. Below, we consider two ways in which abusive supervision The findings on trait anger are also interesting. Trait anger was might affect the overall level of workplace deviance. positively related to supervisor-directed and interpersonal devi- First, abusive supervision is associated with higher levels of ance, but not organizational deviance. Anger has been linked to deviance directed at others. In our study, we explicitly examined

Table 2 Multiple Regressions of Hypothesized Relationships

Supervisor-directed deviance Organizational deviance Interpersonal deviance

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Control Trait anger .26*** .18*** .18*** .11** .00 Ϫ.01 .30*** .22*** .22*** Age Ϫ.15*** Ϫ.17*** Ϫ.16*** Ϫ.27*** Ϫ.25*** Ϫ.24*** Ϫ.16*** Ϫ.15*** Ϫ.15*** Tenure with supervisor .08 .09* .09** .03 .03 .04 .09 .10** .10** Predictor Abusive supervision .39*** .37*** .15*** .14*** .16*** .15*** Negative reciprocity .11** .10** .28*** .27*** .18*** .18*** Moderator Abusive Supervision ϫ Negative Reciprocity .08* .05 .07 ⌬ R2 .17*** .01* .10*** .00 .06*** .01 R2 .09 .26 .27 .08 .18 .19 .12 .19 .19 Adjusted R2 .09 .25 .26 .08 .17 .17 .12 .18 .18 F 13.47*** 27.31*** 23.40*** 11.73*** 17.06*** 14.26*** 18.02*** 17.60*** 15.12***

Note. Standardized beta coefficients are reported. Statistical tests are based on one-tailed tests. * p Ͻ .05. ** p Ͻ .01. *** p Ͻ .001. RESEARCH REPORTS 1165

method variance may not pose a significant biasing problem (Spector, 1987), we conducted the Harmon’s single-factor test (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, for a review). This analysis suggests that there is neither one single factor nor a dominant general factor that accounts for the majority of the variance in individual responses. Further, Podsakoff et al. recommend other nonstatistical methods for reducing common method variance. They recommend protecting respondents’ anonymity and ensuring that the survey contains questions for which there are no right or wrong answers. We followed both these suggestions. Nonetheless, future research might benefit from other methodological precautions, such as collecting data from different sources. Finally, the use of self-report measures is a limitation. Two issues arise here. First, as is common with research on aggression, we examined subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Figure 1. Interaction of abusive supervision and negative reciprocity on The supervisor’s perspective was not assessed. This focus is con- supervisor-directed deviance. Values represent standard deviation from the sistent with previous research on aggression (Dollard et al., 1939) mean. and retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 2004). The underlying belief is that aggression is in the eye of the beholder; if people perceive that interpersonal deviance directed at coworkers. Thus, abusive super- someone is aggressing against them, they will respond to the vision may set off a chain of events in which employee deviance perceived aggression. However, this approach does not assess the that results from abusive supervision is directed at coworkers, who supervisor’s motive. in turn retaliate toward their abusive coworker, and so on, resulting Second, some researchers contend objective data should be in a spiral of deviance (an effect similar to Andersson & Pearson’s integrated into deviance research (Greenberg & Folger, 1988; [1999] conceptualization of spiraling incivility). Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). However, objective data may suf- Second, social learning theory suggests that actions exhibited by fer from criterion deficiency and contamination, because organi- agents of an organization (supervisors) establish models of behav- zations only report these behaviors when employees are caught or ior (Bandura, 1973). As such, supervisors may be “modeling” reprimanded (Fox & Spector, 1999). Nonetheless, with self- deviant behaviors (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996). reports, employees may underreport their deviant behaviors be- O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) suggest that witnessing aggressive (or cause they fear being caught and punished (Lee, 1993). Our venue abusive) models reduces the observer’s inhibitions to act out (jury duty) lessens the fear of possible negative consequences from similarly. Further, watching aggression may stimulate the observ- one’s employer. Additionally, we took methodological precautions er’s emotional arousal, which also enhances aggressive tendencies by testing for social desirability. Still, there are limitations to (Berkowitz, 1993; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). Thus, abusive self-report deviance data. supervision may create an atmosphere that increases the overall Interest in destructive behavior in organizations has increased in level of employee deviance. the last 10 years. We contribute to this literature by examining the Of course, because our data are cross-sectional, inferences of relationship between two types of destructive behaviors: abusive causality cannot be made. Although our conceptualization of the supervision and employee deviance. Our results suggest that de- relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance viance at one level of the organization (supervisors) is related to is consistent with previous work in the area in which abusive other forms of deviance. supervision is the antecedent of employee behavior (e.g., Ashforth, Workplace deviance is a costly problem for organizations (Rob- 1997; Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006; Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., inson & Greenberg, 1998). Understanding the role abusive super- 2001, 2004), other explanations for our findings may exist. For vision plays in workplace deviance may help organizations and example, employee deviance may also elicit supervisor responses researchers identify ways to reduce both the financial and psycho- (e.g., reprimands, warnings) that are perceived as abusive. Addi- logical costs of deviant behavior. This study is one step toward that tionally, a hostile work climate (or organizational norms for ag- end. gression and interpersonal disrespect) could encourage both abusive supervision and deviance.6 However, it is difficult to construct an argument for why belief in negative reciprocity would moderate 6 We thank an anonymous reviewer for these observations. the relationship between employee supervisor-directed deviance and abusive supervision but not the relationships between other types of deviance and abusive supervision in either of these situ- References ations. Nonetheless, given the limitations of data for causality Allred, K. G. (1999). Anger and retaliation: Toward an understanding of testing, future research should examine the causal processes un- impassioned conflict in organizations. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & derlying the relationship between abusive supervision and em- B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 7, ployee deviance. pp. 27–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. There are other limitations that warrant note. All variables were Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the assessed in a single survey. This raises concerns about common workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behav- method variance. Although research indicates that common ior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965. 1166 RESEARCH REPORTS

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 24, Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent 452–471. dysfunctional behavior (pp. 49–67). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998c). Two faces of the powerless: Coping in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, ag- with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), gressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Power and influence in organizations (pp. 203–220). Thousand Oaks, Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–208. CA: Sage. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073–1091. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal York: Wiley. of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59. Brehm, J., & Brehm, S. (1981). Psychological resistance: A theory of Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? freedom and control. New York: Academic Press. Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, Brown, B. R. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107–122. Applied Psychology, 91, 653–658. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. 755–778. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary exam- regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). ination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Admin- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. istrative Sciences, 14, 126–140. Crockett, R. W., & Gilmere, J. A. (1999). Retaliation: Agency theory and Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New gaps in the law. Public Personnel Management, 28, 39–49. York: Springer-Verlag. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. personality into account. Human Relations, 59, 723–752. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New York: Press. Prentice Hall. Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual Baron, R. A. (1971). Magnitude of victim’s pain cues and level of prior differences in the predictions of workplace aggression. Journal of Ap- anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of plied Psychology, 86, 547–559. Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 236–243. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining and Baron, R. A. (2005). Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from social support in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark 331–351. side of organizational behavior (pp. 23–61). New York: Jossey-Bass. Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., & Aselage, J. (2004). Who takes the most Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1998). Workplace aggression–The iceberg revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorse- beneath the tip of workplace violence: Evidence on its forms, frequency, ment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 787–799. and targets. Public Administration Quarterly, 21, 446–464. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). The development of leader-member Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 161–183). Englewood 1538–1567. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulato Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. behavior: The state of science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-Aggression. Erlbaum. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1990). Significance tests and goodness Gallucci, M., & Perugini, M. (2003). Information seeking and reciprocity: of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, A transformational analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 588–606. 473–495. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological New York: McGraw-Hill. Review, 25, 161–178. Bies, R. J. (1999). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In Grasmick, H. R., & Kobayashi, E. (2002). Workplace deviance in Japan: J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational Applying an extended model of deterrence. Deviant Behavior: An In- behavior (pp. 89–118). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. terdisciplinary Journal, 23, 21–43. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: Getting even and the Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in injustice. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Monographs in organizational behavior and industrial relations: Vol. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998a). The many faces of revenge: The good, 23. Dysfunctional behavior in organizations (pp. 83–117). Greenwich, the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins CT: JAI Press. (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Vol. 1: Violent behav- Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1988). Controversial issues in social research ior in organizations (pp. 49–68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. methods. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998b). Revenge in organizations: The good, Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., RESEARCH REPORTS 1167

Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta- Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238. meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, & Emotion, 18, 815–848. issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: Wiley. Jones, D. A. (2003). Predicting retaliation in the workplace: The theory of Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business pro- planned behavior and organizational justice. In D. H. Nagao (Ed.), Best fessionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring paper proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Management [CD], L1–6. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Manage- 10, 425–441. ment. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to struc- Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and tural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85–117. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage. of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied McLean Parks, J. (1998). The fourth arm of justice: The art and science of Psychology, 82, 434–443. revenge. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 113–144. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2004). Broadening our understanding of Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate organizational retaliatory behavior. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary- statistical methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Pyrczak. Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 373–402). Miller, N. E. (1941). The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Review, 48, 337–342. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work. Naperville, IL: in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Man- Sourcebooks. agement Journal, 42, 100–108. Neuman, J. H., & Keashly, L. (2003, April). Workplace bullying: Persis- Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect tent patterns of workplace aggression. In J. Greenberg, & M. E. Roberge and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of (Chairs), Vital but neglected topics in workplace deviance research. Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. ed.). New York: Harper Collins. O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Glew, D. (1996). Organization-motivated Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, Management Journal, 43, 178–190. 21, 225–253. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Mod- Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. erators of the relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of psychology and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Aca- behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychol- demic Press. ogy, 89, 455–465. Perrowe, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in the Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators organizational sciences. In K. M. Rowland, & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resis- Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 21, pp. tance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983. 1–63). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tepper, B. J., Eisenbach, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Potter, P. W. (1998). Test Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The of a justice-based model of subordinates’ resistance to downward influ- personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17, ence attempts. Group & Organization Management, 23, 144–160. 251–283. Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organizational Behavior and Hu- Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the man Decision Processes, 89, 966–984. literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, Wayne, S., Shore, L., & Liden, R. (1997). Perceived organizational support 88, 879–903. and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Wright, R., & Brehm, S. (1982). Reactance as impression management: A Journal, 38, 555–572. critical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 608– Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: 618. Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organi- and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Ap- zational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley. plied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.

(Appendixes follow) 1168 RESEARCH REPORTS

Appendix A

Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings for Tepper’s (2000) Abusive Supervision Measure

Factor

Item 12

1. Ridicules me.a .23 .71 2. Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.a .28 .61 3. Gives me the silent treatment. .45 .49 4. Puts me down in front of others.a .30 .79 5. Invades my privacy. .58 .29 6. Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures. .46 .50 7. Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort. .60 .29 8. Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment. .63 .30 9. Breaks promises he/she makes. .78 .17 10. Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason. .53 .45 11. Makes negative comments about me to others.a .40 .68 12. Is rude to me. .54 .55 13. Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers. .42 .29 14. Tells me I’m incompetent.a .16 .65 15. Lies to me. .76 .23

Note. Dominant factor loadings are presented in boldface. Factor 1 ϭ passive-aggressive abusive supervision; Factor 2 ϭ active-aggressive abusive supervision. Factors accounted for 48.1% and 9.0% of the total variance, respectively (N ϭ 741). Data are from “Consequences of Abusive Supervision,” by B. J. Tepper, 2000, Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 189–190. Copyright 2000 by the Academy of Management. Reprinted with permission. a Items retained for the shortened measure that we used in the current study. Appendix B Appendix C

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Tepper’s (2000) Supervisor-Directed Deviance Measure Abusive Supervision Measure Item Model ␹2 df ⌬␹2 CFI NFI RMSEA 1. Made fun of my supervisor at work. 2-factor 195.40 34 .96 .96 .11 2. Played a mean prank on my supervisor. 1-factor 336.92 35 141.52*** .95 .94 .16 3. Made an obscene comment or gesture toward my supervisor. 4. Acted rudely toward my supervisor. Note. N ϭ 338. All chi-square values are significant at p Ͻ .001. CFI ϭ 5. Gossiped about my supervisor. comparative fit index; NFI ϭ normed fit index; RMSEA ϭ root-mean- 6. Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark against my supervisor. square error of approximation. Data are from Tepper et al. (2004). 7. Publicly embarrassed my supervisor. *** p Ͻ .001, two-tailed. 8. Swore at my supervisor. 9. Refused to talk to my supervisor. 10. Said something hurtful to my supervisor at work.

Note. Supervisor-directed deviance items were adapted from the following scales. Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are from Bennett & Robinson (2000), p. 360. Items 5, 8, and 9 are from Aquino et al. (1999), p. 1082.

Received January 30, 2005 Revision received October 24, 2006 Accepted October 25, 2006 Ⅲ