Abusive supervision, high-performance work systems, and subordinate silence

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test a mediated moderation model of the joint influence of abusive supervision, high-performance work systems (HPWSs) and organizational commitment and intention to leave on employee silence. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 456 employees and 78 human resource managers in 78 Chinese organizations. Findings The results revealed that abusive supervision led to subordinate silence, and HPWSs intensified this effect. In addition, such moderating effect of HPWSs was accounted for by employees’ organizational commitment and intention to leave. Research limitations/implications To reduce the occurrence of employee silence, organizations should not only monitor and restrain abusive supervisory actions, but also be aware of subordinates’ work attitudes driven by organizational HPWSs. Originality/value This is the first study which demonstrates that HPWSs can foster employees’ organizational commitment and hinder their intention to leave and consequently strengthen the relation between abusive supervision and employee silence.

Leaving in Mascot of Silence: Organizational Determinants of Employee Turnover Intentions in Mediating and Moderating Roles of Quiescent Silence and Coworker Support in a Russian Context

“…quiescent silence and turnover intentions. The dominant literature posits abusive supervision as a negative phenomenon resulting in a few negative outcomes such as silence (Xu et al, 2020), the lack of employee engagement (Wang et al, 2020), and employee deviance (Park et al, 2017). However, it would be CEMJ 141…”

“…Fourth, our study is quantitative in nature. The deductive nature of theorizing is common in recently held studies (Xu et al, 2020). However, why, when, and whom supervisors abuse are interesting questions that can extend research in this field.…”

“…The injustice perception and ethical conflict are common among service professionals -but typically investigated separately (Park et al, 2017;Rainer, Schneider, and Lorenz, 2018). So far, scholars only foreground abusive supervision as an antecedent to quiescent silence (Kiewitz et al, 2016;Xu et al, 2020), while missing other organizational level variables that form antecedents of quiescent silence other than the abusive super vision itself (Wang et al, 2020). In line with this stream of research, silence is typically studied as a consequence of abusive supervision, but quiescent silence as an outcome of organizational predictors other than abusive supervision is neglected by researchers (Xu et al, 2020).…”

“…So far, scholars only foreground abusive supervision as an antecedent to quiescent silence (Kiewitz et al, 2016;Xu et al, 2020), while missing other organizational level variables that form antecedents of quiescent silence other than the abusive super vision itself (Wang et al, 2020). In line with this stream of research, silence is typically studied as a consequence of abusive supervision, but quiescent silence as an outcome of organizational predictors other than abusive supervision is neglected by researchers (Xu et al, 2020). The scarcity of investigations to explore predictors of quiescent silence in research is evident in recent studies that ignore quiescent silence as a form of silence (Wang et al, 2020).…”

Disengaging Leadership Scale (DLS): Evidence of Initial Validity

“…Second, the items in the Tepper’s scale are short, clearly worded and easy to understand, which makes them user friendly. Third, this scale was often used in prior studies and was proven to be a valid instrument—e.g., [ 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Abusive leadership measures the conscious harmful behavior of a leader towards a follower, thereby undermining the follower’s effective functioning and work pleasure [ 16 ].…”