We conducted a meta-analysis and empirical review of abusive supervision research in order to derive meta-analytic population estimates for the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and numerous demographic, justice, individual difference, leadership, and outcome variables. The use of psychometric correction enabled us to provide weighted mean correlations and population correlation estimates that accounted for attenuation due to measurement error and sampling error variance. Also, we conducted sensitivity analyses that removed the effects of large samples from analyses. Then, we conducted subgroup analyses using samples drawn from the United States to provide population correlation estimates that corrected for attenuation due to measurement error, sampling error variance, and indirect range restriction. Finally, we examined measurement artifacts resulting from various adaptations of Tepper’s abusive supervision measure. The results reveal that although the associations between perceptions of abusive supervision and outcome variables appear to be universally negative, the magnitude of the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and antecedent and outcome variables varies according to the design features of studies. Contributions to theory and practice, strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

This paper reviews studies concerned with abusive supervision and provides a constructive revision of Tepper's 2007 model. As a result of our review of the recent research, we revised the 2007 Tepper model and added additional variables and casual paths to increase its explanatory potential. The model we propose distinguishes between abusive supervisory behavior and abusive supervisory perceptions, suggesting that each of these variables needs to be studied separately until we know more about how they are related. The revised model also explicitly recognizes possibilities for reverse causation and stresses the importance of subordinates' individual differences such as attribution style, negative affectivity, and implicit work theories, which have the potential to account for significant variability in subordinates' perceptions of abuse. Suggestions for future research based on the original relationships identified by the Tepper review as well as the variables and causal paths suggested in the revised model are provided. emerge as the result of our review. Next, we propose a constructive revision of the Tepper model, which addresses some of the limitations of the prior model and provides suggestions regarding the causal paths and variables that have the potential to explain significant variance in the outcomes associated with abusive supervision. We end with suggestions for future research.Before conducting our review of the recent research, we examined Tepper's (2007) review and the articles covered in his summary to make sure we understood his perspective. Although we agreed with many of his observations and recommendations, we also had some concerns about this body of research. These concerns centered around six issues. First, as noted by Tepper (2007), a majority of the data in these early studies was from single sources (usually the subordinate), and almost all of the research designs were cross-sectional. As a result, we are concerned that strong causal inferences are being made despite the limitations of these designs.Second, we are concerned that researchers appear to be assuming that commonly used abusive supervision measures are objective and reliable measures of abusive supervisory behaviors. Thus, for example, when discussing the results of his research on abusive supervision, Tepper (2000, p. 186) stated "subordinates whose supervisors were more abusive reported higher turnover, less favorable attitudes toward job, life, and organization." This would not be a problem if the statement said "subordinates whose supervisors were perceived to be more abusive" as opposed to "were more abusive," as the Tepper scale measures perceptions rather than behaviors. Third, we are concerned by the lack of validation of abusive supervision measures. We could not find any objective measure of abusive behavior that was related to Tepper's (2000) commonly used perceptual measure.Fourth, we are also concerned that researchers are ignoring plausible theoretical alternatives to the origins of perceptions of abusive supervis...

We tested the longstanding belief that performance is a function of the interaction between cognitive ability and motivation. Using raw data or values obtained from primary study authors as input (k = 40 to 55; N = 8,507 to 11,283), we used meta-analysis to assess the strength and consistency of the multiplicative effects of ability and motivation on performance. A triangulation of evidence based on several types of analyses revealed that the effects of ability and motivation on performance are additive rather than multiplicative. For example, the additive effects of ability and motivation accounted for about 91% of the explained variance in job performance, whereas the ability-motivation interaction accounted for only about 9% of the explained variance. In addition, when there was an interaction, it did not consistently reflect the predicted form (i.e., a stronger ability-performance relation when motivation is higher). Other key findings include that ability was relatively more important to training performance and to performance on work-related tasks in laboratory studies, whereas ability and motivation were similarly important to job performance. In addition, statelike measures of motivation were better predictors of performance than were traitlike measures. These findings have implications for theories about predictors of performance, state versus trait motivation, and maximal versus typical performance. They also have implications for talent management practices concerned with human capital acquisition and the prediction of employee performance.

Workplace deviance research has expanded rapidly over the past decade. Despite the expansive body of research available, we have an incomplete understanding of the measurement, magnitude, and direction of relationships within workplace deviance’s nomological network. We draw from 235 empirical samples of data (k = 235, N = 66,990) to conduct random-effects meta-analyses of interpersonal (k = 156, N = 42,239) and organizational (k = 206, N = 60,008) workplace deviance research so we can build the solid foundation necessary to advance the conversation in this literature. We use an exploratory meta-analytic approach and the horizontal contrasting method of theory elaboration to provide a nuanced understanding of the relationship between interpersonal and organizational deviance (ρ = .67, k = 110, N = 30,426) as well as determine the magnitude and generalizability (i.e., external validity) of relationships within their nomological networks. We find some evidence of differences (i.e., heterogeneity) in the measurement and magnitude of relationships across contexts. Overall, we conduct a state-of-the-art meta-analysis that leverages contemporary meta-analytic techniques and the extensive body of empirical workplace deviance research available to improve our understanding of the measurement of workplace deviance and relationships within its nomological network. Our study instigates new debates about the completeness of our understanding of workplace deviance and provides the empirical building blocks necessary for this literature to reach its unrealized potential.

No abstract

We draw from social psychological and resource-based theories to meta-analytically examine curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors (i.e., job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and workplace deviance). Overall, our meta-analytic results demonstrate that relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors are essentially linear. The limited evidence of curvilinear relationships we did find supports the application of social psychological theories when examining high levels of destructive leadership.Overall, this study's meta-analytic regression, relative weight, and semipartial correlation results have important implications for how to interpret the conclusions drawn from prior destructive leadership research, how to conduct future studies that examine destructive leadership, and practitioners' attempts to limit the effects of destructive leadership on followers' workplace behaviors.

No abstract

No abstract