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

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance to vicarious abusive supervision by supervisor-directed attribution. Furthermore, this study developed a moderated–mediation model to explore how LMX between bystander and his/her supervisor moderate the relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and the supervisor-directed attribution, which subsequently influences bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance. Design/methodology/approach The paper tested the model using a sample of 336 workers using a two-wave survey. A moderated–mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrapping procedure to test the first stage moderated–mediation model in this study. Findings The results showed that LMX (between bystander and his/her supervisor) weakens the indirect relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance by bystanders’ supervisor-directed attribution. Practical implications Leadership training programs should be conducted to caution supervisors in terms of the deleterious consequences of vicarious abusive supervision. Organizations also should plan perception and communication training courses for leaders; such training would reduce bystanders’ responsibility attribution to them by providing timely explanations and communication. Furthermore, organizations should monitor supervisors by managers’ performance appraisal and formulate rules to punish abusive managers. Originality/value These results clarify the nature and consequences of LMX (dyadic relationships of bystanders–supervisor) for bystanders’ attribution process, and explain underlying attributional perceptions and reactions to vicarious abusive supervision. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of when and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance.

Social unfairness as a predictor of social trust in China

“…The prediction champions the extension of network theory from the personal level to the neighbourhood level. This extension is plausible because of the influence of vicarious experience (Chen & Liu, 2019; N. Lee & Seltzer, 2018). Accordingly, one takes the social unfairness experience of others in the neighbourhood vicariously to form one’s social trust, according to the extended view of exchange theory.…”

“…Furthermore, the theory proposes that unfairness experienced in a relation breeds trust in others outside the relation as compensation (White et al., 2015). Extension of exchange theory indicates that a person’s vicarious exchange experience as well as personal experience is influential on the person (Chen & Liu, 2019; N. Lee & Seltzer, 2018). Consistent with exchange theory, unfairness experienced in a relation worsens the relationship and fosters an alternative affiliation (Hay, 2003).…”

“…This effect is additional to the effect of personal experience, according to the extension of exchange theory from the individual to the neighbourhood. The extension maintains that both vicarious experience and personal experience are personally influential (Chen & Liu, 2019; N. Lee & Seltzer, 2018). Herein, vicarious experience refers to social unfairness in others or aggregated in the neighbourhood.…”

Vicarious abusive supervision and turnover in expectant working mothers: Does financial dependency trigger emotional disconnect?

“…Initial inquiry demonstrates that vicarious abusive supervision impacts work‐related factors, such as job frustration and engagement in abusive behaviors toward coworkers, above and beyond personally experiencing abusive supervision (Harris et al, 2013). Further, vicarious abusive supervision leads bystanders to engage in supervisor‐directed deviance (Chen & Liu, 2019) and to increase their work performance to avoid being another target of abuse (Shao et al, 2018). More generally, vicarious workplace mistreatment has far ranging effects on bystanders including posttraumatic stress symptoms (Fitzpatrick & Wilson, 1999), reduced job satisfaction and mental health (Lim et al, 2008; Miner‐Rubino & Cortina, 2007), and increased work withdrawal and lowered health satisfaction (Miner‐Rubino & Cortina, 2004).…”

“…Initial inquiry demonstrates that vicarious abusive supervision impacts work-related factors, such as job frustration and engagement in abusive behaviors toward coworkers, above and beyond personally experiencing abusive supervision (Harris et al, 2013). Further, vicarious abusive supervision leads bystanders to engage in supervisordirected deviance (Chen & Liu, 2019) and to increase their work performance to avoid being another target of abuse (Shao et al, 2018).…”