Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision.

Abstract

Drawing from moral exclusion theory, this article examines outcome dependence and interpersonal liking as key boundary conditions for the linkage between perceived subordinate performance and abusive supervision. Moreover, it investigates the role of abusive supervision for subordinates' subsequent, objective work performance. Across 2 independent studies, an experimental scenario study (N = 157; Study 1) and a time-lagged field study (N = 169; Study 2), the negative relationship between perceived subordinate performance and abusive supervision was found to hinge on a supervisor's outcome dependence on subordinates but not on a supervisor's liking of subordinates. Furthermore, Study 2 demonstrated (a) a negative association between abusive supervision and subordinates' subsequent objective performance and (b) a conditional indirect effect of perceived performance on subsequent objective performance, through abusive supervision, contingent on the degree of outcome dependence, although these relationships did not reach conventional significance levels when controlling for prior objective performance. All in all, the findings highlight the role of instrumentality considerations in relation to abusive supervision and promote new knowledge on both origins and consequences of such supervisory behavior.

A Relational Model of Perceived Overqualification: The Moderating Role of Interpersonal Influence on Social Acceptance

“…The use of such confidence intervals is considered superior to traditional methods (e.g., the Sobel test) in examining (conditional) indirect relationships because it ameliorates power problems introduced by non-normal sampling distributions of an indirect effect (Preacher et al, 2010). Following previous research using the same multi-level analytical method (e.g., Lam, Huang, & Chan, 2015;Walter, Lam, Van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, 2015), we also reported R 1 2 , an indicator of proportions of explained variance in random intercept models (Bickel, 2007, p. 133). This statistic is comparable to the traditional effect size indicator (i.e., R 2 ) in ordinary regression analysis and can be interpreted in a similar way (Bickel, 2007).…”

Supervisors' emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision: The moderating roles of perceived subordinate performance and supervisor self-monitoring

“…In supervisor–subordinate interactions, supervisors' perceptions of subordinate performance may be crucial in this regard, as relatively low‐performing subordinates may thwart their supervisors' goal attainment and, thus, may represent a major source of frustration (Krasikova et al, ; Walter et al, ). In fact, Tepper et al () have described subordinates perceived as low performers as “provocative victims” (see also Olweus, ), with inferior subordinate performance interfering with supervisors' goal attainment and requiring additional effort from supervisors to address “the fallout poor performance causes” (pp.…”

“…More recently, researchers have paid increasing attention to the origins of abusive supervision (e.g., Byrne et al, ; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, ; Walter, Lam, Van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, ). An important explanatory approach has highlighted supervisors' resource deficits as a critical antecedent, such that abusive supervision may occur more frequently if a supervisor lacks the capacity to effectively inhibit, override, or refrain from acting upon behavioral impulses (Wang, Sinclair, & Deese, ).…”

“…Hence, an exhausted supervisor's unwillingness to invest further resources should trigger abusive acts only if the supervisor faces an aggressive impulse. In supervisor–subordinate interactions, a subordinate's performance may be critical in this regard (Walter et al, ). Relatively low‐performing subordinates, in particular, may appear as “frustrating, aggravating, and annoying” and, thus, as deserving targets for supervisor hostility (Tepper et al, , p. 283).…”

Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality

“…That is, only a limited number of studies have examined antecedents of abusive supervision (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, ; Mawritz, Folger, & Latham, ; Tepper, ). This limited research has generally focused on contextual factors such as supervisors' exceedingly difficult goals (Mawritz, Folger and Latham, ), organizational aggressive norms (Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, ), organizational injustice (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, ), and psychological contract violation (Hoobler & Brass, ) as well as subordinate characteristics and behaviors (e.g., core self‐evaluations, hostile attribution style, and performance) (Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, ; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, ; Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, ; Wu & Hu, ). Despite some progress, research examining supervisor‐level antecedents is vital to a thorough understanding of what initially provokes organizational leaders to become abusive.…”