Three Motives for Abusive Supervision: The Mitigating Effect of Subordinates Attributed Motives on Abusive Supervision’s Negative Outcomes

Abstract

We have learned a great deal about the negative consequences of abusive supervision, but little attention has been paid to supervisors’ motives for engaging in abusive behavior. This is an important gap in the literature because the consequences of abusive supervision are likely to differ depending on its attributed motive. The current study extends the literature on abusive supervision by refining the attributed motives of abusive supervision and by examining how the attributed motives influence the negative effects of abusive supervision on leader–member exchange (LMX) and withdrawal behaviors (work withdrawal and job withdrawal). Specifically, we develop a conditional process model of abusive supervision which suggests that the negative relationship between abusive supervision and LMX is moderated by the attributed motives of abusive supervision (three motives: injury initiation, performance pressure, and personal disposition to abuse). Our results also suggest that lowered LMX resulting from abusive supervision increases victims’ work withdrawal and job withdrawal behaviors as moderated by organizational tenure. Using quantitative and qualitative data from 139 victims of abuse, we test the proposed model.

When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance

“…Moreover, previous studies have revealed that subordinates differ in their perceptions regarding a manager’s leadership behavior (Hershcovis and Barling, 2010; Martinko et al , 2011). Recent studies have examined the processes through which abuse victims attribute the causes of their mistreatment (Farh and Chen, 2014; Kim, Atwater, Latheef and Zheng, 2018; Schilpzand, de Pater and Erez, 2016; Schilpzand, Leavitt and Lim, 2016; Schyns et al , 2018). Dhanani and LaPalme (2019) reviewed of empirical studies examining vicarious mistreatment and maintained that future studies should be conducted to clarify bystanders’ responsibility attribution processes.…”

“…Previous studies have asserted that abusive supervision research should consider the role of target attributions (Burton and Barber, 2014; Tepper, 2007). Moreover, studies have explored victims’ responsibility attribution processes according to situational factors (Farh and Chen, 2014; Kim, Atwater, Latheef and Zheng, 2018; Schilpzand, de Pater and Erez, 2016; Schilpzand, Leavitt and Lim, 2016; Schyns et al , 2018). Although attribution theories and related studies have been important in increasing our understanding of abused employees’ (i.e.…”

The Power of Followers That do not Follow: Investigating the Effects of Follower Resistance, Leader Implicit Followership Theories and Leader Negative Affect on the Emergence of Destructive Leader Behavior

“…First, while research on the negative consequences of destructive leadership, such as negative follower behavior, is highly dominant in past and contemporary literature, our findings support and extend previous research on the antecedents of destructive leadership. Past research on antecedents of destructive leadership mainly focused on leader- related constructs (e.g., personality traits; Kim et al, 2018;Wu & Hu, 2009) or incorporated a social learning perspective (e.g., trickle-down effects; Aryee et al, 2007;Mawritz et al, 2012). We applied research on follower resistance, victimization perspectives (Aquino & Thau, 2009), and leader identity threat (Tepper et al, 2017) to theorize about followers as active recipients that have an impact on leader behavior as part of the leader-follower relationship.…”

Abusive Supervision: A Review of the Scientific Production in the Last 20 Years

“…Source: literature review. In addition to the described topics, there are other effects addressed in the studies that result from abusive supervision. They relate to organizational ethics, organizational identification, quality of the relationship between supervisor and subordinate, paranoia, subordinate's physical health issues, supervisor's remorse, and psychological safety (DECOSTER et al, 2013;HAGGARD;JIANG;GU, 2016;KIM et al, 2018;LIU et al, 2016;LOPES et al, 2019;OGUNFOWORA, 2013;ZHAO et al, 2018). Such issues draw attention and arouse interest of behavior and management scholars, in view of the individual and collective crises of current times, which challenge legitimized systems,…”