The overarching purpose of this article is to review and synthesize the accumulated evidence that explores the causes and consequences of abusive supervision in work organizations. Our review is organized in three sections. In the first section, we discuss research trends and provide clarification regarding the pressing and not-so-pressing problems with the way that abusive supervision is ordinarily conceptualized and studied. In the second section, we highlight problems and prospects in research on the consequences of abusive supervision. In the third section, we turn our attention to the growing body of research that explores the antecedent conditions and processes that explain when abusive supervision is more or less likely to occur. Throughout the article, we offer an overview of what has been learned over the past 15-plus years and highlight unanswered questions that warrant examination in future studies.

Integrating 2 theoretical perspectives on predictor-criterion relationships, the present study developed and tested a hierarchical framework in which each five-factor model (FFM) personality trait comprises 2 DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) facets, which in turn comprise 6 Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO facets. Both theoretical perspectives-the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma and construct correspondence-suggest that lower order traits would better predict facets of job performance (task performance and contextual performance). They differ, however, as to the relative merits of broad and narrow traits in predicting a broad criterion (overall job performance). We first meta-analyzed the relationship of the 30 NEO facets to overall job performance and its facets. Overall, 1,176 correlations from 410 independent samples (combined N = 406,029) were coded and meta-analyzed. We then formed the 10 DeYoung et al. facets from the NEO facets, and 5 broad traits from those facets. Overall, results provided support for the 6-2-1 framework in general and the importance of the NEO facets in particular.

Historically, organizational and personality psychologists have ignored within-individual variation in personality across situations or have treated it as measurement error. However, we conducted a 10-day experience sampling study consistent with whole trait theory (Fleeson, 2012), which conceptualizes personality as a system of stable tendencies and patterns of intraindividual variation along the dimensions of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The study examined whether (a) internal events (i.e., motivation), performance episodes, and interpersonal experiences at work predict deviations from central tendencies in trait-relevant behavior, affect, and cognition (i.e., state personality), and (b) there are individual differences in responsiveness to work experiences. Results revealed that personality at work exhibited both stability and variation within individuals. Trait measures predicted average levels of trait manifestation in daily behavior at work, whereas daily work experiences (i.e., organizational citizenship, interpersonal conflict, and motivation) predicted deviations from baseline tendencies. Additionally, correlations of neuroticism with standard deviations in the daily personality variables suggest that, although work experiences influence state personality, people higher in neuroticism exhibit higher levels of intraindividual variation in personality than do those who are more emotionally stable.

The authors investigated core self-evaluations and educational attainment as mediating mechanisms for the influence of appearance (physical attractiveness) and intelligence (general mental ability) on income and financial strain. The direct effects of core self-evaluations on financial strain, as well as the indirect effects through income, were also considered. Longitudinal data were obtained as part of a national study, the Harvard Study of Health and Life Quality, and proposed models were evaluated with structural equation modeling. Results supported a partially mediated model, such that general mental ability and physical attractiveness exhibited both direct and indirect effects on income, as mediated by educational attainment and core self-evaluations. Finally, income negatively predicted financial strain, whereas core self-evaluations had both a direct and an indirect (through income) negative effect on financial strain. Overall, the results suggest that looks (physical attractiveness), brains (intelligence), and personality (core self-evaluations) are all important to income and financial strain.

The present study linked general mental ability (GMA) to extrinsic career success using a multilevel framework that included time and 3 possible time-based mediators of the GMA-career success relationship. Results, based on a large national sample, revealed that over a 28-year period, GMA affected growth in 2 indicators of extrinsic career success (income and occupational prestige), such that the careers of high-GMA individuals ascended more steeply over time than those of low-GMA individuals. Part of the reason high-GMA individuals had steeper growth in extrinsic success over time was because they attained more education, completed more job training, and gravitated toward more complex jobs. GMA also moderated the degree to which within-individual variation in the mediating variables affected within-individual variation in extrinsic career success over time: Education, training, and job complexity were much more likely to translate into career success for more intelligent individuals.

Over the past two decades, accumulating evidence has indicated that individuals experience challenge and hindrance stressors in qualitatively different ways, with the former being linked to more positive outcomes than the latter. Indeed, challenge stressors are believed to have net positive effects even though they can also lead to a range of strains, eliciting beliefs that managers can enhance performance outcomes by increasing the frequency of challenge stressors experienced in the workplace. The current article questions this conventional wisdom by developing theory that explains how different patterns of challenge stressor exposure influence employee outcomes. Across 2 field studies, our results supported our theory, indicating that when challenge stressors vary across time periods, they have negative indirect effects on employee performance and well-being outcomes. In contrast, when employees experience a stable pattern of challenge stressors across time periods, they have positive indirect effects on employee performance and well-being outcomes. These results, which suggest that the benefits of challenge stressors may not outweigh their costs when challenge stressors fluctuate, have important implications for theory and practice.

Over the past 30 years, the nature of communication at work has changed. Leaders in particular rely increasingly on e-mail to communicate with their superiors and subordinates. However, researchers and practitioners alike suggest that people frequently report feeling overloaded by the e-mail demands they experience at work. In the current study, we develop a self-regulatory framework that articulates how leaders' day-to-day e-mail demands relate to a perceived lack of goal progress, which has a negative impact on their subsequent enactment of routine (i.e., initiating structure) and exemplary (i.e., transformational) leadership behaviors. We further theorize how two cross-level moderators-centrality of e-mail to one's job and trait self-control-impact these relations. In an experience sampling study of 48 managers across 10 consecutive workdays, our results illustrate that e-mail demands are associated with a lack of perceived goal progress, to which leaders respond by reducing their initiating structure and transformational behaviors. The relation of e-mail demands with leader goal progress was strongest when e-mail was perceived as less central to performing one's job, and the relations of low goal progress with leadership behaviors were strongest for leaders low in trait self-control. (PsycINFO Database Record

Fundamental to the definition of abusive supervision is the notion that subordinates are often victims of a pattern of mistreatment (Tepper, 2000). However, little research has examined the processes through which such destructive relational patterns emerge. In this study, we draw from and extend the multimotive model of reactions to interpersonal threat (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009) to formulate and test hypotheses about how employees' emotional and behavioral responses may ameliorate or worsen supervisors' abuse. To test this model, we collected 6 waves of data from a sample of 244 employees. Results revealed reciprocal relationships between abusive supervision and both supervisor-directed counterproductive behavior and supervisor-directed avoidance. Whereas the abusive supervision--counterproductive behavior relationship was partially driven by anger, the abusive supervision--avoidance relationship was partially mediated by fear. These findings suggest that some may find themselves in abusive relationships, in part, because their own reactions to mistreatment can, perhaps unknowingly, reinforce abusive behavior.