Organizational Behaviour in the COVID‐19 Context: Effects of Supervisor‐Directed Deviance on Retaliation against Subordinates

Abstract

Previous research mostly examines supervisor‐directed deviance as a subordinate's reaction to the supervisor's abusive behaviour while ignoring the perspective of supervisors as potential victims of deviant behaviour. Additionally, COVID‐19 has deeply affected organizational climate and workplace behaviour. Therefore, drawing on the affective events theory, we examined the COVID‐19 pandemic as a context shaping the effects of supervisor‐directed deviance on retaliation against subordinates in the United States. We conducted two quasi‐experiments with pre‐ and post‐COVID‐19 (Study 1, n = 97) and Wave 1–Wave 3 pandemic study designs (Study 2, n = 94), respectively, and found that supervisor‐directed deviance triggered felt leader identity threat, consequently leading to retaliation against subordinates; this indirect effect strengthened as the pandemic progressed. We replicated these findings using a field study during the third wave of the pandemic (Study 3, n = 190), which established external validity by expanding the types of deviant and retaliatory behaviours examined. The results further showed that low COVID‐19‐induced empathic concern strengthened the effect of felt leader identity threat on retaliatory responses. Overall, our paper contributes to the literatures on retaliation and supervisor‐directed deviance and opens avenues for research on the pandemic's impact on organizational behaviour.

Disrupting Management Research? Critical Reflections on British Journal of Management COVID‐19 Research and an Agenda for the Future

“…The other seven studies use quantitative approaches including experiments or quasi‐experiments (Kakarika et al. , 2022 ; Papagiannidis et al. , 2022 ), secondary financial databases (Ataullah, Le and Wood, 2022 ; Ghobadian et al.…”

“…Seven out of the 14 are wholly or primarily qualitative in approach (Adisa et al, 2022;Ashman et al, 2022;Branicki, Kalfa and Brammer, 2022;Nayani et al, 2022;Puthusserry et al, 2022;Sahasranamam and Soundararajan, 2022;Wulandhari et al, 2022). The other seven studies use quantitative approaches including experiments or quasiexperiments (Kakarika et al, 2022;Papagiannidis et al, 2022), secondary financial databases (Ataullah, Le and Wood, 2022;Ghobadian et al, 2022;Li, Trinh and Elnahass, 2022), and survey data (Calabrese, Cowling and Liu, 2022;Liu, Shahab and Hoque, 2022).…”

Don’t Shoot the Messenger? A Morality- and Gender-Based Model of Reactions to Negative Workplace Gossip

“…The scale comprises four items (1 = yes , 0 = no ). An example item is: “Do you always practice what you preach to people?” Similar to previous research (Kakarika et al, 2022 ), we examined the correlation between social desirability and the self-reported items. No items showed correlations greater than 0.30 and thus were retained in subsequent analyses.…”

Fast-food restaurant employees’ demographics variances regarding counterproductive work behaviours in Cairo

“…In addition, CWBs have been mentioned differently in many studies, such as antisocial behaviors (Ojo & Tamunoipiriala, 2019), dysfunctional workplace behaviors (De Clercq et al, 2021), workplace deviance (Ojo & Tamunoipiriala, 2019), organizational misbehaviors (Jeewandara & Kumari, 2021), organizational delinquency (Al Ghazo et al, 2019), workplace aggression (Fox & Spector, 2006), and organizational retaliatory behaviors (Kakarika et al, 2022).…”