Why Are Abusive Supervisors Abusive? A Dual-system Self-control Model

Abstract

Building on prior work showing that abusive supervision is a reaction to subordinates' poor performance, we develop a self-control framework to outline when and why supervisors abuse poor performing subordinates. In particular, we argue poor performing subordinates instill in supervisors a sense of hostility towards the subordinate, which in turn leads to engaging in abusive supervision. Within this self-control framework, poor performance is more likely to lead to abusive supervision when (a) the magnitude of the hostility experienced is higher (e.g., for those with a hostile attribution bias), or (b) the translation of hostility into abusive supervision is unconstrained (e.g., for those who are low in trait mindfulness). In two experimental studies with full-time supervisors where we manipulated the independent variable (Study 1) and the mediator (Study 2), and in a multi-wave and multi-source field study with data collected from supervisorsubordinate teams (50 supervisors and 206 subordinates) at two time points (Study 3), we found overall support for our predictions. Implications for how to reduce the occurrence of abusive supervision in the workplace are discussed.

Mindfulness beyond wellbeing: Emotion regulation and team‐member exchange in the workplace

“…Across two studies (an experiment and a cross-sectional survey) mindfulness buffered the relationship between organisational injustice and negative responses, including retaliation (Long & Christian, 2015). In another study, supervisors high in mindfulness were less likely to be perceived as abusive by subordinates (Liang et al, 2016). Liang, Brown, Lian, and Keeping (2018) also found support for mindfulness buffering aggressive responses to hostility via improved emotional regulation strategies among supervisors.…”

Psychological and neurological predictors of abusive supervision

“…The current research extends our understanding of the antecedents of abusive supervision in several meaningful ways. First, extant research has placed a large focus on employee‐based antecedents of abusive supervision (Liang et al., ; Tepper, ). An understanding of the employee conditions and characteristics that invite or promote abuse is meaningful.…”

“…Such research led Liang et al. () to suggest that there may be specific neurological underpinnings of impulsive or uncontrolled responses in social contexts that could lead to abusive supervision.…”

“…Specifically, these regions have been shown to be involved in a variety of affective and cognitive processes that contribute to social behavior, such as: (a) emotion recognition (e.g., Critchley et al, 2000), (b) social self-awareness and understanding others' mental states (i.e., theory of mind) (e.g., Moriguchi, Ohnishi, Mori, Matsuda, & Komaki, 2007), and (c) moral judgment and decision making (e.g., Greene & Haidt, 2002). Such research led Liang et al (2016) to suggest that there may be specific neurological underpinnings of impulsive or uncontrolled responses in social contexts that could lead to abusive supervision.…”

Reaching the limits of reciprocity in favor exchange: The effects of generous, stingy, and matched favor giving on social status.

“…Participants then respond to survey questions. This technique has been widely used in experimental studies (e.g., Casciaro, Gino, & Kouchaki, 2014;Liang, Lian, Brown, Ferris, Hanig, Keeping, 2016;Mayer, Greenbaum, Kuenzi, & Shteynberg, 2009;Wellman, Mayer, Ong, & DeRue, 2016).…”