You Abuse and I Criticize: An Ego Depletion and Leader–Member Exchange Examination of Abusive Supervision and Destructive Voice

Mackey, Jeremy D.; Huang, Longbin; He, Wei

doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4024-x

Cited by 63 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As perceptions of depletion are aversive, they shall be avoided in general. Even more, depletion perceptions may go along with other undesirable outcomes, such as unethical behavior (Lee et al, 2016; Lin et al, 2016), destructive voice (Mackey, Huang, & He, 2018), or decreased helping (Gabriel, Koopman, Rosen, & Johnson, 2018). Therefore, organizations should strive to create work environments and conditions minimizing the occurrence of high self‐control demands wherever it is possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond depletion: Daily self‐control motivation as an explanation of self‐control failure at work

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The organizational self‐control literature usually applies resource perspectives that explain self‐control failure at work by depletion of self‐control resources. However, these perspectives neglect the role of self‐control motivation. On a daily level, we examine several self‐control aspects (resources, motivation, demands, and effort) as predictors of a manifestation of self‐control failure at work, namely, daily counterproductive work behavior toward the organization (CWB‐O). Additionally, we investigate self‐control effort as a mechanism predicting the depletion of self‐control resources throughout the day. We analyzed data from 155 employees in a 2‐week diary study with 2 daily measurement points. Multilevel path modeling showed that self‐control motivation and self‐control demands, but not self‐control resource depletion, predicted self‐control effort. There was an indirect effect from self‐control motivation on CWB‐O via self‐control effort but no indirect effect from self‐control demands on self‐control resource depletion throughout the day via self‐control effort. Findings suggest that self‐control motivation is a crucial factor explaining self‐control failure at work and cast further doubt on the idea that exerted self‐control effort is the only mechanism leading to self‐control resource depletion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond depletion: Daily self‐control motivation as an explanation of self‐control failure at work

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LMX measure developed in the western cultural context could suffer from potential cultural bias in one's interpretations of the social exchange phenomenon and therefore be vulnerable to cross‐cultural applications. Yet, there is empirical evidence supporting the use of LMX construct (as well as LMX differentiation and LLX constructs) across cultures, including the Chinese context (e.g., Carnevale, Huang, & Paterson, ; Huang, Xu, Huang, & Liu, ; Mackey, Huang, & He, in press; Sui et al, ; Zhou et al, ). Another concern is that there could be other contextual (e.g., collectivistic culture) or individual (e.g., traditionality) factors that might influence the way employees and their narcissistic leaders choose to interact in a leader–follower relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader–member exchange differentiation, and follower voice

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we draw from the conservation of resources theory and the narcissism literature to examine why and when narcissistic leaders develop and maintain differentiated social relationships with followers in a group setting, therefore demotivating follower voice. Using data from 457 employees and their 95 supervisors working at a large Chinese consulting company, we tested and found support for our hypotheses that leader narcissism had a negative direct effect on employee voice, as well as a negative indirect effect on voice via group-level leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation. Our findings further showed that leaders' upward exchange, leaderleader exchange (LLX), with their own supervisor moderated the negative indirect effect of narcissism on voice such that this negative indirect effect was stronger in the presence of low leader LLX but turned nonsignificant in the presence of high leader LLX. Theoretical and practical implications of our research are discussed. Limitations and directions for future research are also offered. K E Y W O R D Sleader-leader exchange, leader narcissism, LMX differentiation, voice

show abstract

“…Furthermore, team members who experience team leader’s abusive behavior are more likely to exhibit deviance ( Tepper et al, 2009 ; Javed et al, 2019 ) and directed destructive voice ( Mackey et al, 2020 ) toward the team leader, and are less likely to engage in positive behavior, such as OCB ( Xu et al, 2012 ) and personal initiatives ( Pan and Lin, 2018 ). In return, these behaviors become negative feedback to the team leader, leading to circumstances in which the team members appear underneath the team leader’s expectations.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LMX differentiation (DLMX) can help explain why the effects of abusive supervision on TLMX are stronger for some teams. Previous research has revealed that a team leader’s influence on team members’ performance strongly depends on how the team leader interacts with each and every team member ( Wu et al, 2010 ; Mackey et al, 2020 ). In view of this logic, we consider DLMX a key moderator of the relationship between abusive supervision and TLMX.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abusive Supervision, Leader-Member Exchange, and Creativity: A Multilevel Examination

Teng

Zhou

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the growing attention on the topic of abusive supervision, how abusive supervision affects individual and team creativity have not yet been thoroughly investigated. Drawn from the perspective of leader-member exchange (LMX), the current study develops a multilevel model to describe the relationships between abusive supervision and creativity at both team and individual levels, with a focus on the roles played by team-level leader-member exchange (TLMX) and LMX differentiation (DLMX). Based on data collected from 319 team members and their team leaders in 71 teams, the results show that abusive supervision has a negative relationship with TLMX, a practice that is conducive to both team and individual creativity. At the team level, the negative relationship between abusive supervision and TLMX is lessened by a higher level of DLMX. In addition, the positive relationship between TLMX and team creativity is weakened by a higher level of DLMX. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

You Abuse and I Criticize: An Ego Depletion and Leader–Member Exchange Examination of Abusive Supervision and Destructive Voice

Cited by 63 publications

References 59 publications

Beyond depletion: Daily self‐control motivation as an explanation of self‐control failure at work

Beyond depletion: Daily self‐control motivation as an explanation of self‐control failure at work

Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader–member exchange differentiation, and follower voice

Abusive Supervision, Leader-Member Exchange, and Creativity: A Multilevel Examination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About