Who do we blame for abusive supervision?

Abstract

Research has looked extensively at one side of abusive supervision (that is employee perceptions) and subsequently linked this phenomenon to supervisors' actual behaviour. We address this research gap by investigating the other side—employee characteristics as a factor related to the perception of abusive supervision (AS). Data collected from 443 employees within the Pakistani telecommunications industry revealed that employees' intimidation behaviours was positively related to their perceptions of AS, mediated by emotional exhaustion. In addition, recognition (from top management) was found to moderate the indirect effects of intimidation on AS via emotional exhaustion. Our findings challenge the assumption that supervisors are to blame for exhibiting abusive behaviour and identify a new, underlying factor related to AS.

Subordinates’ negative workplace gossip leads to supervisor abuse: based on the conservation of resources theory

“…In the past, most academic studies on the influencing factors of abusive supervision were based on a single mechanism, namely, emotional mechanisms (Khan and Medica, 2020; Li et al , 2020b; Naeem et al , 2020) or cognitive mechanisms (Camps et al , 2020; Graham et al , 2019; Khan et al , 2016; Liang et al , 2016; Robertson et al , 2018; Yu et al , 2018). Research results based on a single mechanism are insufficient in giving scholars a deep understanding of the internal mechanism.…”

Conceptualizing employees' behavioral pattern changes by experiencing customer mistreatment: Integrating moral self‐regulation and dual process model perspectives

“…Another research stream that has addressed customer mistreatment and employees' corresponding workplace sabotage/OCB-customer has been the resource-based approach, mainly using conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989(Hobfoll, , 2001. The COR theory argued that individuals strive to maintain a certain level of emotional, cognitive, and/or social resources when they interact with others, and they further strive to access additional resources while minimizing potential resource loss (Khan & Medica, 2020). Numerous studies have explained how the resource depletion perspective can affect the relationship between customer mistreatment and employees' behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, including Garcia et al (2019), Shao and Skarlicki (2014), Song et al (2021), van Jaarsveld et al (2021), and Wang et al (2011.…”

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences: A Retrospective Review Using Bibliometric Analysis

“…The most cited articles in this cluster concentrate on human resource practices and organizational commitment (353 citations) (Meyer & Smith, 2000), organizational outcomes of charismatic leadership (205 citations) (DeGroot et al., 2000), and the ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders (163 citations) (Kanungo, 2001). Other notable topics covered in this cluster include abusive supervision (Khan & Medica, 2020) adaptability (Charbonnier‐Voirin & Roussel, 2012), change‐championing behaviour (Kalyal & Grabarski, 2021), charisma (Conger et al., 1997), creativity and integrity (Palanski & Vogelgesang, 2011), counterproductive behaviour (Marcus et al., 2013), help‐giving discontinuity (Chou et al., 2020), interpersonal conflict (de Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2021), laissez‐faire leadership (Usman et al., 2020), leadership styles (Aronson, 2001), mindfulness (Charoensukmongkol & Pandey, 2021), organizational citizenship behaviour (Jawahar & Stone, 2017), passion (Forest et al., 2011), performance appraisal (Tziner et al., 1997), psychological health (Pellerin & Cloutier, 2018), recognition and well‐being (Gilbert & Kelloway, 2018), workplace empowerment or enslavement (Tennakoon, 2021), and value‐based shared leadership (Manz et al., 2011), among others.…”