Abusive supervision, knowledge sharing, and individual factors

Abstract

Purpose – By applying conservation-of-resource (COR) theory, the purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of a leader’s destructive behaviors, i.e., abusive supervision, on employee knowledge sharing and the moderating effects of learning goal orientation and self-enhancement motives on the aforementioned relationship. Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses were tested using regression analysis on data from 245 employees in South Korea. Findings – The results showed that abused employees who experience depleted resources are likely to reduce their level of knowledge sharing, in accordance with COR theory. Furthermore, this research demonstrated that the negative effects of abusive supervision may differ depending on individual factors. Specifically, when an individual employee has low internal motivation or available resources for knowledge sharing (low learning orientation and high self-enhancement motive), the detrimental consequence of abusive supervision on knowledge sharing is worsened. Practical implications – The research suggests that managers should be aware of the deleterious effects of abusive supervision on knowledge sharing and should invest more time and effort in preventing abusive supervision in the workplace. Originality/value – Although organizations might invest significant amounts of effort in knowledge sharing, abusive supervision could be a barrier that discourages employees’ knowledge sharing. Yet, the strength of aforementioned relationship is dependent on individual factors. In order to achieve organizational effectiveness through knowledge sharing, the critical role of leaders’ behavior and employees’ characteristics or motivation should not be overlooked.

Tit for Tat: Abusive Supervision and Knowledge Hiding-The Role of Psychological Contract Breach and Psychological Ownership

“…These findings suggest that the supervisor abusive behaviors compel individuals to respond in a negative way. It is because individuals think their knowledge base to be valuable and the sense of ill-treatment or disregard will force them toward knowledge hiding behaviors [79]. Psychological contract breach, which refers to individuals' perceptions that their supervisor has failed to meet all or any of the obligations owed to them [47], has been proposed as an important psychological mechanism that leads to certain undesired organizational outcomes [24,25].…”

The Trickle-Down Effect of Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Effects of Supervisors’ Task Performance and Employee Promotion Focus

“…Abusive supervisors often criticize their subordinates publicly, shout at them, intimidate them, use aggressive eye contact with them, withhold necessary information from them, ridicule them, and give them the “silent treatment” (Keashly, 1998; Tepper, 2000). Past research on abusive supervisor behavior has focused on its negative consequences, including attitudes, behaviors, and psychological distress (Harris et al, 2007; S. L. Kim et al, 2016).…”

Ingratiating with Despotic Leaders to Gain Status: The Role of Power Distance Orientation and Self-enhancement Motive

“…We accordingly treat upward ingratiatory behavior as an overarching construct, consistent with a construct validation study by Kumar and Beyerlein (1991), empirical studies (e.g., Kacmar and Valle 1997;Watt 1993), and the notion that employees engage in ingratiatory tactics or not, irrespective of the specific form they take (Pandey 1981). 1 In addition to expecting a positive relationship of employees' exposure to despotic leadership with upward ingratiatory behavior, and subsequent workplace status, we theorize that this process might be invigorated by employees' power distance orientation (Auh et al 2016) and self-enhancement motive (Kim et al 2016). First, a strong power distance orientation captures employees' acceptance that certain organizational members are endowed with more power and have the right to exercise that power by imposing their opinions and preferences on others who occupy less advantaged positions (Kirkman et al 2009;Li and Sun 2015).…”