Abusive supervision and subordinates' organization deviance.

Abstract

The authors developed an integrated model of the relationships among abusive supervision, affective organizational commitment, norms toward organization deviance, and organization deviance and tested the framework in 2 studies: a 2-wave investigation of 243 supervised employees and a cross-sectional study of 247 employees organized into 68 work groups. Path analytic tests of mediated moderation provide support for the prediction that the mediated effect of abusive supervision on organization deviance (through affective commitment) is stronger when employees perceive that their coworkers are more approving of organization deviance (Study 1) and when coworkers perform more acts of organization deviance (Study 2).

Dysfunctional Organization: The Leadership Factor

“…Caldwell and Canuto-Carranco suggest that in the guise of organizational effectiveness and promoting productivity, some leaders often abuse their power and create unhealthy culture to which employees react negatively and thereby promoting organizational dysfunction. This corroborated a research by Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, and Duffy (2008) that found abused employees to be less committed to organizational goal achievement, hence contributing to organizational dysfunctions. Similarly, Burton (2002) suggested that leaders who displayed threatening behaviors, harassment, bullying and physical assault of co-workers created a dysfunctional organizational climate.…”

Expatriate Knowledge Transfer, Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity, and Subsidiary Performance

“…We also compared four alternative models: (1) the first-stage model, in which the mediation relationship is moderated at the first stage of the indirect effect, (2) the secondstage model, in which the mediation relationship is moderated at the second stage of the indirect effect, (3) the hypothesized first-and second-stage model, in which the mediation relationship is moderated at both the first and the second stages of the indirect effect, and (4) the total effect moderation. We conducted nested model comparison by computing a generalized R^ from the regression f?^-values and comparing it with a Q-statistic (Pedhauzer, 1982;Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008), calculated as:…”

Impact of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions on Subordinate’s Perception of Abusive Supervision

“…From this standpoint, it is comprehensible that the needs for further study regarding employees' perceptions of abusive supervision in another cultural setting are desirable especially in a developed versus a developing country context. This is particularly the case given that the majority of the work to date has been done from a US and western perspective (Ashforth, 1994(Ashforth, , 1997Bowling & Michel, 2011;Namie & Namie, 2009;Tepper, 2000;Tepper et al, 2009;Tepper et al, 2006;Tepper et al, 2008;Tepper et al, 2011;Tsapatsis, 2012), therefore it is argued that the work in the domain of abusive supervision is principally conducted by Americans, in an American and western cultural context and settings, which may not be applicable in other cultural settings especially in developing countries. Kang and Jensen (2009) examined the influences of power distance and collectivism on abusive supervision and found a positive relationship between high power distance and the subordinate's perception of abusive supervision, while they further reported collectivism playing a moderating role between the relationship of perceived abusive supervision to its negative consequences.…”

“…As these both countries are totally different from each other on the basis of their economic situation, religion and especially on their cultural grounds. Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007;Jian et al, 2011;Wang et al, 2012;Wei & Si, 2013;Xiaqi, Kun, Chongsen, & Sufang, 2012;Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012) 2 North America (Tepper, 2000;Tepper 2007;Tepper et al, 2009;Tepper et al, 2006;Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004;Tepper, Duffy, et al, 2001;Tepper et al, 2008;Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001;Tepper et al, 2011;Tepper et al, 2007;Ashforth, 1994Ashforth, , 1997Bowling & Michel, 2011;Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004;Christmas, 2007;DelBel, 2003;Dupré, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006;Namie & Namie, 2009;Tsapatsis, 2012) 3 Australia (Grice et al, 2003 ;Ng, 2010 ;Kiazad et al, 2010) 4 United Kingdom (Turnbull, 1995;Deborah, 2000;McMillan, 1995) 5 Pakistan , Khan, 2010Khan, 2014aKhan, , 2014bKhan, , 2014cImran, 2010;Mukhtar et al, 2010;Bashir & Hanif, 2011;Gadit & Mugford, 2008) 6 Israel (Dana Yagil, 2006) 7 Turkey …”

“…(a) The majority of studies conducted in the domain of abusive supervision have used Hofstede's cultural dimensions for comparing the cultures (Cheng et al, 2004;Hu et al, 2011;Kang & Jensen, 2009 (c) The majority of studies in the domain of abusive supervision have been conducted in the context of developed and western countries (Ashforth, 1994(Ashforth, , 1997Bowling & Michel, 2011;Namie & Namie, 2009;Tepper, 2000;Tepper et al, 2009;Tepper et al, 2006;Tepper et al, 2008;Tepper et al, 2011;Tsapatsis, 2012), while in the present study, the researcher tried to identify the cultural differences between developed and developing countries, i.e., Australia and Pakistan, one representing western culture and the other representing the eastern culture.…”