DISSERTATION ABUSIVE SUPERVISION AND EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERS’ IMPLICIT FOLLOWERSHIP THEORIES Submitted by Uma Kedharnath Department of Psychology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Fall 2014 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Alyssa Mitchell Gibbons Jennifer Harman Chris Henle Kurt Kraiger Copyright by Uma Kedharnath 2014 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT ABUSIVE SUPERVISION AND EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERS’ IMPLICIT FOLLOWERSHIP THEORIES In this study, I integrated research on abusive supervision and leaders’ implicit followership theories (LIFTs; Sy, 2010). An important proposition of LIFTs theory is that matching between LIFTs and an employee’s characteristics should yield the most positive employee outcomes; however, these matching effects in the LIFTs context have not yet been tested. Therefore, I examined the extent to which agreement and disagreement between employees’ perceptions of their supervisor’s LIFTs and employees’ ratings of their own characteristics related to two outcomes – abusive supervision and LMX. Results from two samples of student employees supported the prediction that employee perceptions of supervisor LIFTs and their own characteristics would be associated with lower abusive supervision and higher LMX. In addition, perceived LIFTs and employee characteristics interacted such that employees who reported highly positive supervisor LIFTs and highly positive employee characteristics also reported the least abusive supervision and the highest quality relationships with their supervisor. The greater the discrepancy between employees’ supervisor LIFTs ratings and their employee characteristics ratings, the higher the abusive supervision that they reported, supporting the matching hypothesis suggested by LIFTs theory. Finally, the level of discrepancy between employees’ supervisor LIFTs ratings and their employee characteristics ratings significantly related to LMX only in one of the two samples, providing partial support for this hypothesis. Overall, this study shows that various ii combinations of perceived LIFTs and employee characteristics influence employee outcomes in important ways. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Alyssa Gibbons, for her guidance and patience. She selflessly gave her time and attention to help me learn and grow. I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Chris Henle, Kurt Kraiger, and Jennifer Harman, for their excellent counsel on my dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr. Tom Sy for several discussions that helped me to think more deeply about my research. I am forever indebted to the I/O Psychology faculty for encouraging me and providing me with ample learning experiences. Special thanks to Dr. Kevin Murphy for providing me with valuable feedback on my paper, and Dr. Lynn Shore for her advice and support. I could not have completed my dissertation without the reassuring presence of my friends near and far – I am grateful for each and every one of you. I would also like to thank my mom and dad, sisters, and nephew for their love and support and for keeping me grounded. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank my husband, Jeff, for tirelessly pushing me to accomplish my goals, making me laugh when I needed it most, and always standing by me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ABUSIVE SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................3 Consequences of abusive supervision .....................................................................................3 Antecedents of abusive supervision ........................................................................................3 IMPLICIT THEORIES IN THE WORKPLACE .......................................................................6 Implicit leadership theories .....................................................................................................6 Prototype terminology ............................................................................................................7 LEADERS’ IMPLICIT FOLLOWERSHIP THEORIES ...........................................................8 LIFTs dimensions ...................................................................................................................8 Implications of LIFTs .............................................................................................................8 Negative LIFTs ................................................................................................................9 Measuring the employee perspective ....................................................................................10 Figure 1 ..........................................................................................................................12 Overall effects of LIFTs........................................................................................................13 Overall effects of LIFTs on abusive supervision ...........................................................13 Theory X and Y ....................................................................................................................14 Expectancy violations theory ................................................................................................15 Overall effects of employee characteristics on abusive supervision .............................16 Matching effects...................................................................................................................17 v Matching effects in the ILT context...............................................................................17 Matching effects of LIFTs on abusive supervision ........................................................18 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY ........................................................................21 Abusive supervision and LMX ............................................................................................22 LIFTs as a predictor of LMX ...............................................................................................22 Overall effects of LIFTs on LMX ..................................................................................23 Overall effects of employee characteristics on LMX ....................................................23 Matching effects of LIFTs on LMX ..............................................................................24 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................26 SAMPLE ...................................................................................................................................26 Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................27 PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................................27 MEASURES .............................................................................................................................27 Leaders’ implicit followership theories (LIFTs) ..................................................................27 Employee characteristics .....................................................................................................28 Abusive supervision .............................................................................................................28 Leader-member exchange ....................................................................................................28 ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................29 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................31 COMMON METHOD VARIANCE ........................................................................................31 OCCURRENCE OF DISCREPANCIES ..................................................................................32 SAMPLE 1 RESULTS .............................................................................................................33 Descriptives..........................................................................................................................33 vi Overall effects ......................................................................................................................33 Matching effects...................................................................................................................35 Matching effects of the predictors on abusive supervision ............................................36 Figure 2 ..........................................................................................................................39 Matching effects of the predictors on LMX ..................................................................39 Figure