Conceptual Framework
Transformational Leadership
It has been acknowledged that the leadership style has considerable effects on employees’ performance and work environment, and transformational leadership is regarded as one of the most effective models. Transformational leadership can be defined as an “approach by which leaders motivate followers to identify with organizational goals and interests and to perform beyond expectations” (Buil et al., 2019, p. 65). Some of the most common features of this type of leadership include charisma or individualized impact, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration (Buil et al., 2019). These aspects may be manifested differently in a leader, which may affect the strategy the leader will utilize in different situations.
Intellectual stimulation encompasses leaders’ ability to encourage employees to explore their creativity, innovate, as well as the capacity to challenge personnel and facilitate the development of new ideas. Recent research shows that transformational leadership is instrumental in enhancing employees’ innovative effort and creativity (Ng, 2017). As far as inspirational motivation is concerned, transformational leaders articulate their vision and inspire followers to share it and achieve this vision (Buil et al., 2019). Such leaders facilitate the enhancement of employees’ proactivity and adaptability, which has a positive influence on their performance (Wang et al., 2017). Transformational leadership also contributes to the development of a learning organization culture where employees share knowledge and innovate, which enhances their and organizational performance (Para-González et al., 2018). Companies also need to provide ongoing training to the staff to maintain the established culture.
Individualized consideration is critical for the effective use of transformational leadership. Employees’ performance improves when their needs are met, including the needs in a specific amount of support from a transformational leader (Tepper et al., 2018). Sufficient or excessive amount of received transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational citizenship and work attitudes. The increase in employees’ engagement and organizational citizenship is associated with the development of a psychological attachment to a transformational leader (Sahu et al., 2018). These attachment types play a mediating role in employees’ engagement with different levels of exhaustion. At that, personnel engagement is lower when transformational leadership is low on days with high job demands (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). A high level of transformational leadership on such days is a mediator of employees’ engagement.
At the same time, transformational leadership has a darker side as well because it can have negative outcomes on certain aspects related to performance, motivation, and working environment. For instance, this leadership paradigm can hinder employees’ thriving if associated with a moderate or high level of employees’ exhaustion (Niessen et al., 2017). Inconsistent transformational leadership can also have mixed effects. For instance, transformational leadership does not correlate with the creativity of employees with a low level of perceived organizational support (Suifan et al., 2018). Therefore, it is critical to consider the diverse aspects and influences of transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership and Abusive Supervision
Although the impact inconsistent transformational leadership has on performance at organizational and individual levels has received certain attention in academia, the relationship between transformational leadership and destructive forms of leadership is still under-researched. It has been found that leaders tend to alternate leadership styles, which has diverse effects on employees’ job performance, satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, creativity, and commitment (Mullen et al., 2018). For instance, although transformational leadership contributes to the enhancement of safety participation, the positive influence of this working environment can be hindered when abusive supervision occurs. When leaders alternate transformational leadership and abusive supervision, employees feel higher levels of stress and are less productive. Due to the damage to employees’ psychological wellbeing, their behavior can change to counterproductive, which will lead to negative effects for the workplace atmosphere. According to Mullen et al. (2018), in order to minimize the occurrence of abusive supervision, it can be effective to encourage leaders to develop successful leader-member relationships. Enhanced leader-member exchange mitigates the adverse consequences of abusive behaviors and makes leaders more empathetic and improves their emotional intelligence as well as the corresponding competencies.
Inconsistent transformational leadership can also lead to a change in employees’ engagement and performance on a daily basis (Huang et al., 2019). For instance, the personnel’s performance can be high on one day while employees may be disengaged on another day depending on the leadership the supervisor uses. Sustained abusive leadership results in low morale, disengagement from current tasks, and low performance. Huang et al. (2019) emphasize that researchers may need to explore the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance in day-to-day contexts in order to identify the exact mechanisms involved in the process.
Transformational leadership can have no mediating effect on employees’ performance if abusive supervision prevails and the former leadership style is utilized occasionally (Barling et al., 2018). Leaders often switch to different forms of leadership due to the availability of resources, and it has been found that autocratic leadership was effective in the presence of scarce resources while abusive supervision had milder negative consequences compared to similar circumstances and the use of transformational leadership (Barling et al., 2018). It is noteworthy that Barling et al. (2018) conducted their research in the healthcare setting, which displays certain limitations and the need to address the topic in a larger context.
The abusive behavior of ethical leaders can have rather negative effects making subordinates more receptive to abusive supervision in the future. Prior use of ethical leadership posed the focus on interactional justice that had a moderating impact on the relationship between abusive supervision and work outcomes (Wang & Chan, 2020). Interactional justice is associated with people’s perceptions of the degree to which they are treated with respect and dignity in different contexts (Wang & Chan, 2020). On the one hand, when employees feel they are treated unfairly, their psychological wellbeing is negatively affected, which may result in vulnerability to abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Such people may become victims of abusive leaders or react in an increasingly intense manner. On the other hand, inconsistent leadership tends to increase people’s need for interactional justice, and if abusive supervision frequency or magnitude grows, negative workplace outcomes intensify.
Individual characteristics and skills of the staff also play a significant role in their performance under such conditions. For example, employees with high levels of mindfulness perform better when transformational leadership is utilized, but they are also increasingly affected by abusive supervision, which has detrimental effects on their psychological well-being and performance (Walsh & Arnold, 2020). Therefore, employees’ mindfulness can result in their poor performance and job dissatisfaction, or full work engagement, if inconsistent leadership is utilized, depending on the used leadership style on a daily basis. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies, which makes researchers more attentive to inconsistent leadership and its outcomes. Walsh and Arnold (2020) also suggest that employees may need extensive training regarding effective coping strategies to ensure their mindfulness will not enhance negative responses to abusive leadership and will facilitate the development of a favorable working environment.
At the same time, Lange et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between leaders’ mindfulness and transformational leadership, while the leader’s mindfulness and abusive supervision were characterized by a negative relationship. An important observation has been made as mindful leaders tended to exert transformational leadership when addressing innovation-related incentives and individuals’ ideas or performance rather than team-based aspects (Lange et al., 2018). This trend is explained by the resource-based approach as mindfulness is mainly related to personal links and interpersonal relationships. Although some aspects of inconsistent leadership use have been explored, the link between transformational leadership and abusive behavior requires further investigation, as well as the impact these leadership styles have on employees’ performance.
Workplace Abuse
In order to explore the effects of workplace abuse on employee performance, it is critical to define the term. The accepted terminology has been introduced by the U. S. government to address the associated issues and ensure employees’ safety. According to the United States Department of Labor (2020), workplace violence is any “act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site” (para. 2). It has been estimated that workplace violence is quite widespread, although it is underreported and can often be difficult to address.
For instance, it has been found that out of 5,147 cases of fatal injuries at the working place, 458 cases were caused by another person intentionally (U. S. Department of Labor, 2020). It is also known that workplace violence is the third cause of fatal occupational injuries in the country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2020) report that fatal injury caused by occupational violence is especially common among employees engaged in such areas as transportation, sales, and protective services. Workplace violence is closely linked to increased absenteeism among healthcare employees. A wide range of preventive measures and legislation addressing such cases have been introduced and enacted (United States government, 2021). These regulations are largely related to harassment and severe forms of workplace abuse.
Abusive supervision can be seen as a type of occupational violence that is mainly manifested in less severe forms but still has apparent adverse effects on employees’ performance and wellbeing. It is noteworthy that the phenomenon is associated with a strong subjective component. For instance, abusive supervision has been defined as subordinates’ perception “of the degree to which its superiors engage in the continuous delivery of threatening verbal sentences and nonverbal actions, without physical touch” (Hussain et al., 2020, p. 4). This type of relationship can be based on personal and organizational aspects (Ronen & Donia, 2020). A significant bulk of research is devoted to the examination of the way managers see abusive supervision and the effects of these behavioral patterns on their conduct and performance (Ambrose & Ganegoda, 2020). The overall impact of these attitudes on organizational outcomes and employees’ conduct and wellbeing.
Although quite particular definitions exist, researchers pay specific attention to the ways the problem is perceived by people in particular settings. Perceived abusive supervision is a matter of scholars’ exploration in terms of its effects on employees’ performance and workplace environment (Park et al., 2020). Another domain explored by researchers is linked to mitigating factors helping people address the negative outcomes of abusive supervision. For instance, Tariq and Ding (2018) claim that family is an important aspect that has a significant influence on people’s decision to continue working in abusive environments. Family motivation can also contribute to the development of resilience that is beneficial for employees’ performance in such a strained atmosphere. Another mitigating factor is mindfulness that is associated with resilience development and creativity enhancement (Shen et al., 2020b). Other areas such as the reasons for occupational abuse and ways to address its outcomes have also been investigated in academia.
Causes of Workplace Abuse
Interpersonal Aspects
Numerous causes of occupational abuse have been identified and examined in detail. Personal traits of the supervisor and subordinates that shape the way their interpersonal relationships develop are seen as influential factors (Qin et al., 2019). Tariq et al. (2019) also found that supervisors may abuse high-performers due to their jealousy. In simple terms, managers may be envious of their subordinates’ achievements or particular skills and characteristics, which may cause their abusive conduct. Khan et al. (2018) also found that abusive supervision occurs when the social dominance of a supervisor is high. If the supervisor feels their dominance is threatened, they can utilize abusive supervision methods. Abusive supervision also leads to abusive behaviors in the working place, so supervisors’ abuse makes subordinates display similar behavioral patterns in the relationships with their peers (Ramdeo & Singh, 2019). Various conflicts that may arise in the working environment may later result in abusive supervision as well.
Leaders’ Traits
Leaders’ personal traits also pave the way to abusive supervision in organizations. Leaders’ creative mindset is linked to abusive supervision through moral disengagement (Qin et al., 2019). Leaders’ negative creativity is closely related to abusive leadership as supervisors use all possible means to achieve their vision irrespective of their followers’ needs, features, and performance. Leaders high in moral disengagement tend to have low capacity to self-regulate, which results in their abusive behavior. Qin et al. (2019) paid specific attention to day-to-day fluctuations in leaders’ supervision and employees’ performance and found a direct link between the mentioned variables and within-person factors rather than interpersonal aspects. For instance, the quality of sleep and the perception of work-family balance plays a more significant role in choosing a behavioral pattern than specific workplace processes or relationships.
Such personal characteristics as extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are associated with abusive supervision (Tahira et al., 2019). Such features as conscientiousness and neuroticism have been long associated with abusive behaviors as such people are often inflexible and prone to negative emotions. However, extraversion is not commonly linked to abusive behavior, which creates a considerable gap in the knowledge on the matter. Tahira et al. (2019) address this gap identifying the relationship between leaders’ extraversion and abusive supervision. It is stated that extraverted people feel freer when articulating their ideas and expressing their emotions, and this confidence tends to lead to abusive leadership. At that, diverse factors, such as organizational culture, cultural peculiarities, as well as employees’ perceptions and individual traits, can have a moderating impact on leaders’ abusive behaviors.
Leaders’ attachment orientation is an influential factor affecting their leadership style as well. Attachment theory has been widely used in studies examining leadership and people’s occupational behavior (Robertson et al., 2018). This theoretical framework is based on the exploration of the relationships between infants and their caregivers, as well as the influence of these patterns on cognitive and social models the former develop and employ during their adulthood. Diverse patterns and modes of adult behavior exist. When applied to occupational behavior, it is stated that people with anxious attachment orientation are more likely to display abusive supervision while close/dependent attachment orientation had a negative relationship with abusive leadership (Robertson et al., 2018). In contrast, supervisors high on close/depend attachment domains tend to think they are capable of cultivating effective relationships, so they do not engage in abusive behaviors. Social self-efficacy is a strong mediator affecting the use of leadership styles in both cases. The training aimed at the development of social skills and increasing leaders’ confidence in their ability to build successful relationships is regarded as a successful strategy to minimize abusive leadership.
In addition to personal characteristics, leaders’ beliefs regarding abusive supervision outcomes are also instrumental in their use of this type of leadership. It has been found that leaders who believe that abusive leadership is appropriate and results in better performance tend to display abusive behaviors (Watkins et al., 2017). Supervisors’ empathic concern plays a moderating role in the relationship between abusive behavior and adverse workplace outcomes. Such leaders may use abusive supervision irrespective of employees’ previous performance. High-achievers can also become victims of negative leadership due to their leaders’ beliefs regarding the effectiveness of abusive supervision and its favorable effects on performance (Watkins et al., 2017). Depending on the degree to which the leader exhibits empathic concerns, the leader uses abusive supervision to achieve organizational goals.
Employees’ Traits
Employees’ personal features are linked to workplace abuse in various domains. Worldviews and the attitude to authority, as well as the level of performance of individuals, can predict their victimization by abusive leaders (Khan et al., 2017). Khan et al. (2017) utilized the dual-process model to investigate the role personnel’s perspectives play in the relationship between abusive supervision and performance. The model implies the focus on the competitive and dangerous worldviews. In the former case, people attempt to achieve dominance in a group due to their assumptions regarding the competitiveness and the importance of dominance. In the latter case, people see the world as a dangerous environment and seek enhanced social cohesion, as well as collective security. These perspectives affect the staff’s attitudes and responses to abusive supervision (Khan et al., 2017). People who have the dangerous worldview are more likely to be submissive and display obedience with autocratic and abusive leadership. Higher submission to authority is associated with poor performers and employees’ deviant behaviors in the presence of abusive leadership. Such employees tend to be victimized due to their poor performance and behavior (passivity and submissiveness).
Employees’ neuroticism and introversion were strong predictors of exposure to abusive supervision (Nielsen et al., 2017). Employees with such personal features were more likely to engage in workplace deviation and low performance. Extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to new experiences had a negative relationship with abusive leadership although openness had a less significant influence on people’s response to abusive supervision. It is also evident that people with such traits are vulnerable to victimization, so the vicious circle emerges as they are prone to enhanced reactions that lead to their further abuse. Nielsen et al. (2017) also add that the meta-analysis they implemented showed that methodology had an effect on the results as the variables (openness, extraversion, and the rest) were conceptualized and measured differently. Hence, further research on the relationship between individuals’ personal traits and abusive supervision is needed.
Machiavellianism is another characteristic feature of employees that is associated with the use of abusive leadership. Under abusive supervision employees’ Machiavellianism is activated and people engage in unethical behavior as a response to leaders’ abusive conduct (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Such Machiavellianism dimensions as a desire for control, distrust in others, amoral manipulation, and a desire for status have been in researchers’ lenses. The primary predictors of the counterproductive workplace and unethical behavior are the desire for control and amoral manipulation (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Hence, abusive leadership activates some negative traits in employees and deteriorates their commitment and performance, which leads to diverse negative effects, including but not confined to an inappropriate workplace environment.
Subordinates’ attentional bias and trait self-control is influenced by abusive supervision and can play a mediating role in employees’ safety behaviors (Yuan et al., 2018). Emotional exhaustion also moderates the link between abusive leadership and safety behaviors. Trait self-control had the strongest mediating effect on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision (Yuan et al., 2018). Employees’ psychological capital is another feature that can enhance the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employee productivity (Raza et al., 2019). Psychological capital is the complex notion consisting of such aspects and traits as self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and hope. Employees with a strong psychological capital are less affected by leaders’ abusive behaviors and remain high performers. Psychological capital can be accumulated through the development of the corresponding culture and the enhancement of proactive relationships between the leader and followers, as well as a social exchange among employees.
Organizational culture also has a direct and indirect impact on the occurrence of abusive supervision. Companies with weak organizational cultures are often characterized by the existence of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) norms, which is one of the factors contributing to the use of abusive leadership (Ju et al., 2019). Employees’ personal control plays a considerable role in the process as the presence of CWB norms alone does not always result in CWB. Leaders’ personal traits, as well as workload, work-related stress, and personal control, intertwine with CWB norms, which results in abusive supervision. Companies with autocratic leadership tend to be an illustration of this phenomenon as they are associated with rather strong CWB norms. An effective way to diminish the adverse outcomes of abusive leadership and minimize its occurrence is training provided to managers who need to understand the detrimental effects of abusive supervision and ways to avoid undesirable behaviors (Ju et al., 2019). The establishment of proper organizational culture with no CWB norms is another goal to attain to make abusive supervision in the working place impossible.
Leadership and Abuse
Researchers have also shown interest in the relationship between the leadership style used by the supervisor and abusive supervision strategies, as well as employees’ responses to such supervision. It has been reported that some leadership styles are more associated with occupational abuse than others. For example, transactional leaders are often characterized by the utilization of abusive supervision methods, which leads to employees’ disengagement and deviant behaviors (Peltokorpi, 2018). Autocratic leadership styles are associated with the prevalence of abusive supervision that is often apparent in masculine cultures (Zhang et al., 2019). Al-Hawari et al. (2019) note that supportive behaviors and the display of transformational leadership styles are, on the contrary, mitigating factors helping employees cope with experienced workplace abuse, as well as customers’ incivility. Therefore, supervisors are encouraged to employ transformational leadership techniques in various settings.
Horizontal and Vertical Abuse
As mentioned above, occupational abuse can be manifested on different levels, including personal and organizational. Abuse can also be vertical and horizontal, depending on the roles performed by the victim and the abuser within the organization. Vertical abuse is seen as the most common as people in a dominant position tend to exercise their dominance by abusing their subordinates (Tariq et al., 2019). Supervisors have a certain power over their subordinates, which may vary across organizations depending on the level of their hierarchy. Vertical occupational abuse is quite common in highly hierarchical companies. Horizontal abuse also takes place, which is often related to subordinates’ responses to supervisors’ abusive behaviors. Employees may become disengaged or even rather abusive towards their peers (Ramdeo & Singh, 2019). This kind of horizontal abuse is characterized by more serious negative issues as it can lead to misconduct, absenteeism, and other kinds of inappropriate behavior.
Consequences of Abuse
Abusive supervision tends to have multiple effects on employees, working climate, and the overall performance of the department or entire company. The primary focus of scholars has been on employees’ performance, but other domains are also explored. Physical and mental health issues have been examined in detail, as employees’ health is one of the most influential factors affecting their productivity (Akram et al., 2019). Employees’ motivation and job satisfaction are common topics of exploration as well (Tian et al., 2020; Sannes et al., 2021). Abusive leadership is strongly associated with employees’ political behavior in organizations.
In the presence of abusive supervision, employees are more likely to engage in diverse political processes within organizations. It has been reported that employees high in Machiavellianism having strong ties with the leader display the highest political involvement (Liu & Liu, 2018). Those characterized by a lower level of Machiavellianism had higher perceptions of organizational politics compared to individuals with low Machiavellianism. Hence, abusive leadership has a substantial impact on political dynamics in organizations, which needs to be considered in order to develop or maintain a strong organizational culture. In addition, economic and legal outcomes are associated with abusive supervision, which has diverse effects on the development of the organization. It is necessary to consider the areas mentioned above in more detail as each type of consequence can lead to quite particular effects.
Health outcomes
According to CDC (2020), occupational violence leads to diverse psychological issues, physical injury, and even death. It is noteworthy that abusive supervision is only one of the manifestations of workplace violence, but it contributes considerably to the development of situations leading to trauma or even death. Fischer et al. (2021) note that there is a lack of statistical data on the exact link between injury and abusive supervision. However, the relationship between mental health and abusive supervision exposure has been analyzed in detail.
Employees experiencing abusive supervision tend to display paranoia making them vulnerable to the development of sinister attribution error that is a cognitive error that implies erroneous perceptions of workplace events (Lopes et al., 2018). An illustration of this psychological state is when an employee misattributes an ordinary workplace situation (peers laughing or discussing something) to negative motives (an attempt to mock or harm them in any way). Employees affected by the sinister attribution error are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. In some cases, abusive supervision can lead to suicidal ideation in employees (Liu et al., 2020). Liu et al. (2020) also found that meaning in life mitigated the adverse effects of abusive leadership. The satisfaction of people’s psychological needs is linked to the degree of suicidal ideation in employees. For example, employees’ sense of relatedness and needs for competence played a moderating role.
Such mental health conditions as depression and anxiety are common for people experiencing abusive supervision. It has been acknowledged that females are more vulnerable to develop these mental health illnesses compared to men (Sannes et al., 2021). Sannes et al. (2021) also found that women’s genotypes are an influential factor affecting their response to occupational abuse. The researchers state that GRHR1 TAT/TAT genotype in females enhances the risk of developing anxiety caused by supervision abuse (Sannes et al., 2021). Zhou et al. (2020) also found that women are at a higher risk of abusing alcohol when experiencing abusive supervision for a long period of time. Alcohol abuse is associated with serious mental and physical health outcomes, including but not confined to the development of addiction, depression, and cardiovascular issues, among others.
Emotional exhaustion is one of the health outcomes of abusive supervision. Subordinates facing workplace abuse feel depleted of their resources that can affect their physical health as well (Akram et al., 2019). Psychological distress is also a common issue for employees exposed to abusive supervision. Saleem et al. (2018) explored the consequences of workplace abuse among law enforcement professionals and found a direct link between abusive supervision and employees’ psychological distress. This psychological problem is associated with other issues, including but not confined to depression, anxiety, or even more severe issues.
Another effect related to the emotional state of employees caused by abusive supervision is workplace ostracism. This phenomenon implies that individuals develop defense mechanisms making them less emotionally receptive (He et al., 2021). Although such methods are instrumental in addressing abusive behaviors and pressure, this emotional state prevents employees from being fully engaged, committed, and creative. It also has detrimental effects on mental health as ostracism can lead to people’s job dissatisfaction and, as a result, depression.
Although the majority of studies provide insights into the psychological state of employees and supervisors, physical conditions have also been explored. Although researches aimed at examining the link between people’s physical state and abusive supervision are quite scarce, certain valuable findings have been discussed in the academia. Liang et al. (2018) implemented a longitudinal study concentrating on the perceived physical outcomes of exposure to perceived abusive supervision. The researchers stress that such physical conditions as headaches, stomach pain, and sleep disturbances are directly linked to workplace abuse, which often leads to losses for the employer as people need to receive health care (Liang et al., 2018). Mullen et al. (2018) claim that physical health can be threatened as employees exposed to supervisor incivility tend to pay less attention to workplace safety, which results in injury. Peltokorpi and Ramaswami (2019) also found a direct positive relationship between abusive supervision and physical health concerns. For instance, people facing supervisors’ abuse reported increased levels of fatigue, digestive system issues, sleep disturbances, enhanced headaches, and other issues.
Economic outcomes
It has been estimated that abusive supervision costs may reach up to $24 billion annually due to productivity losses, healthcare costs, and absenteeism (Blum, 2017). An indirect negative economic effect of abusive supervision is also a possible lack of funding. Independent venture capitalists now pay considerable attention to the presence and magnitude of abusive leadership in companies during the due-diligence process (Blum, 2017). Therefore, companies with a high degree of abusive supervision risk losing potentially profitable contracts and additional investment. Employees who have faced abusive supervision and other types of occupational violence often needed up to a month away from work to recover from the received trauma (CDC, 2020). Clearly, such negative effects lead to financial losses for organizations, so abusive supervision is a negative phenomenon that has detrimental effects on the development of companies.
Legal outcomes
As mentioned above, abusive supervision causes employees’ ignorance or unwillingness to follow safety guidelines, which may result in diverse legal outcomes. Mullen et al. (2018) analyzed situations related to employees’ insufficient commitment to safety measures caused by their supervisors’ incivility or employees’ views regarding supervisors’ attitude towards workplace safety. Various litigations can arise as a result of the lack of commitment to safety measures. Moreover, employees’ have different views on workplace abuse, and perceived abusive supervision may vary substantially depending on people’s attitudes (Park et al., 2020). In some cases, employees may take legal actions as a response to the supervisor’s incivility, which may cause considerable issues for the organization.
Impact of Abuse on Productivity
One of the indirect effects on employees’ productivity resulting from abusive leadership is employees’ deviant behaviors. The personnel displaying low levels of self-evaluation become the victims of abusive supervision more frequently and are more prone to engage in deviant behaviors (Kluemper et al., 2019). These behaviors can take different forms, but they tend to have a negative impact on employees’ performance and the overall workplace environment. Kluemper et al. (2019) identified the negative relationship between high core self-evaluation and deviant conduct under abusive supervision. Cognitive resources play an important moderating role and prevent workplace deviance, which ensures employees’ productivity (Kluemper et al., 2019). Another mediating factor is emotional competency and age as it was found that older employees tended to use cognitive reappraisal more effectively and were less receptive to their supervisors’ abusive leadership practices (Peng et al., 2020). Therefore, workplace deviation under abusive supervision can be mediated by leaders’ and employees’ personal traits, as well as their competencies and skills.
Teams and entire companies’ productivity can also be affected if the workplace climate is characterized by the prevalence of abusive supervision. Ghani et al. (2020) examined the effects of abusive leadership on employees’ knowledge sharing or rather knowledge hiding. The findings suggest that employees exposed to workplace abuse are less likely to share knowledge, which has negative effects on the performance of teams and each individual’s productivity. Knowledge hiding associated with occupational abuse has received considerable attention among scholars. Feng and Wang (2019) claim that knowledge hiding leads to poor performance and inappropriate climate in the working place, but it is still a common response of people facing abusive supervision. The issue has been explored in different cultural contexts. Khalid et al. (2018) analyzed this type of response to abusive supervision in the Islamic contexts and found that people pertaining to that cultural domain also tend to be unwilling to share knowledge if they experience workplace abuse.
Employees’ productivity and the development of firms can be seriously undermined by abusive supervision in some cases. For example, frontline employees tend to take revenge on customers as a response measure to workplace abuse (Hongbo et al., 2020). Abused employees provide poor quality or even insult customers, which may have detrimental outcomes. Park and Kim (2019) report that employees can engage in service sabotage as a result of being victims of abusive supervisors. Clearly, such reactions have a negative influence on their performance and the overall growth of their companies.
Abusive Leadership and Creativity
The negative impact of abusive supervision on employees’ creativity has been acknowledged. People are less likely to explore their creativity when they find themselves under pressure or have physical and mental health issues. Moreover, Shen et al. (2020a) note that individuals tend to resist an innovative approach or the use of innovative techniques if they have abusive supervisors. The researchers also stress that although the workplace climate can have a mediating role, employees’ personal traits are more influential factors related to creativity under the conditions of supervisors’ abuse. Tian et al. (2020) also claim that occupational abuse is associated with decreased innovative behaviors and self-efficacy performance. Researchers providing recommendations in their articles agree that abusive supervision should be abandoned or minimized so that a favorable workplace climate could be developed.
As mentioned above, transformational leadership is the most appropriate model to facilitate employees’ creativity. In some cases, transformational leadership mitigates the negative effects of abusive supervision (Suifan et al., 2018). However, these positive outcomes are limited to certain contexts and situations, as well as the existing organizational culture. If the company has a well-established culture of a learning organization, inconsistent transformational leadership can still have positive effects on employees’ creativity (Suifan et al., 2018). However, these influences are not found in companies with a weak culture or low level of employee commitment.
Abusive supervision influences creativity in different aspects and through diverse mechanisms. The use of conservation of resources theory is becoming common for the research concerning abusive leadership and its outcomes. Although the direct link between abusive supervision and employee creativity has not been identified, this type of leadership influences this domain indirectly. For example, abusive leadership has indirect negative effects on creativity as this approach deteriorates employees’ sleep patterns and increases their exhaustion, which results in lower creativity and engagement in creative processes (Han et al., 2017). It is mentioned that the relationship between these variables is rather weak, which allows researchers to express doubts regarding the link between abusive leadership and personnel’s creativity. Han et al. (2017) suggest that the link can be a result of the peculiarities of the employed methodology. Other significant limitations were associated with the causal relationship between emotional exhaustion or sleep patterns and work-related environment.
Another channel of the negative influence of abusive supervision on employees’ creativity is associated with social aspects. Employees tend to choose knowledge-hiding when exposed to abusive supervision, and this working environment decreases personnel’s creativity and hinders the effectiveness of creativity processes (Jahanzeb et al., 2019). People’s reciprocity beliefs have a strong impact on their attitude and responses to perceived abusive supervision. Knowledge hiding is one of the common reactions to abusive leadership due to a number of reasons (Jahanzeb et al., 2019). Employees are afraid of leaders who tend to manage rewards and other benefits, they also see knowledge concealment as an act that can be obscured rather easily. In addition, employees experiencing negative reciprocity may be willing to engage in behaviors that can harm the organization and the leader, in particular. Knowledge hiding is one of the methods to harm the organization and react to leaders’ abusive behavior.
It is also important to note that some studies suggest that abusive supervision can have controversial effects on employees’ performance and productivity. For instance, Zhu and Zhang (2019) found that supervisors’ incivility discouraged employees’ innovative behaviors, but it could also promote the adoption of innovative approaches by increasing challenge-related stress. Zhang and Liu (2018) report certain positive effects of abusive supervision in some cultural landscapes. For instance, in collectivist cultures and companies with a more pro-active working climate, abusive supervision can motivate employees to work harder and see supervisors’ incivility as a way to encourage rather than insult or hurt.
Abusive Supervision and Gender
Researchers have paid significant attention to the influence of abusive leadership on different genders. Abusive supervision can have a positive effect on male employees in the short-term perspective (Haryanto & Cahyono, 2019). Masculine employees can improve their performance after the occasional exposure to abusive supervision. However, male employees experiencing prolonged abusive leadership tend to underperform within a certain period of time. In such situations, the workplace environment becomes unfavorable, and deviant behaviors and a high rate of turnover may be present.
This pattern is not apparent among female employees. This population tends to perceive abusive leadership in a more intense manner (Pradhan et al., 2018). Female employees are more likely to make a decision to quit as compared to their male peers if they are exposed to their leaders’ abusive behaviors. Male employees tend to be more confident and defend themselves in different ways, including their engagement in deviant behaviors, while females try to avoid such negative experiences and choose to quit. At that, these findings although consistent with previous research are more typical of the Indian context as compared to North American trends (Pradhan et al., 2018). Based on the results, Pradhan et al. (2018) note that abusive leadership can hardly be eliminated, but its adverse outcomes can be mitigated with the help of educational interventions for leaders and employees aimed at the development of communication skills, collaboration, and conflict management. Gender differences are associated with the psychological peculiarities of genders making them use different coping strategies.
At the same time, Zhou et al. (2020) found no meaningful gender differences in terms of psychological distress, work-family conflicts, and the risk of alcohol abuse resulting from abusive supervision. In these domains, subordinates irrespective of gender were equally affected by the abusive behaviors of their leaders and responded similarly. Importantly, no direct link between alcohol abuse and negative leadership was identified (Zhou et al., 2020). Although these studies and reviews shed light on some peculiarities of employees’ reactions based on their gender, various gaps are yet to be filled. For instance, the role gender plays in choosing abusive supervision is under-researched.
Cultural Peculiarities and Abusive Leadership
The consequences of leaders’ abusive behavior can be shaped by the cultural peculiarities of followers. For instance, Asian and Western cultures differ in terms of the outcomes of abusive supervision, and researchers identify the positive effects of abusive leadership in the Asian context (Zhang & Liu, 2018). Being the culture with high power distance, Asia Pacific is the region where leaders expect a higher degree of obedience, and subordinates have a higher level of abuse tolerance. Employees often occupy a lower social layer, which makes them more submissive since they accept the authority of a person with a higher status (Zhang & Liu, 2018). These peculiarities are associated with certain favorable outcomes of abusive supervision as this type of leadership tends to have a favorable impact on employees’ performance. At that, the work in cross-cultural teams may be hindered due to the different perceptions of abuse and diverse reactions people of different cultures are likely to display.
Bregenzer et al. (2019) examined the relationship between abusive supervision and health-related and social resources of employees in high- and low-power-distance cultures. It was found that in high power contexts, employees need more health-related resources due to abusive leadership as they find this type of supervision inappropriate and counterproductive. At the same time, in low power distance cultures employees accept the authority of the supervisor whose abusive behavior is tolerated. Nevertheless, under abusive supervision, employees in such settings require more social resources, which facilitates the development of strong teams where team members support each other. This response to abusive supervision tends to lead to positive workplace outcomes, but it will not be favorable for high power distance cultures.
Another cultural dimension that can have a considerable effect on the relationship between abusive leadership and employee performance is future orientation. Followers’ future orientation has a moderating impact on the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior, as well as the link between abusive leadership and employees’ originality behaviors (Yang et al., 2019). Employees who focus on future outcomes and long-term goals are less negatively affected by the abusive behavior of the leader and perform better. It has been found that employees’ seniority is linked to their responses to their leaders’ abusive behaviors. Junior subordinates are more likely to have a lower tolerance for abusive leadership, and the role of future orientation is less pronounced.
Yang et al. (2019) explain that this phenomenon can persist due to these employees’ fears and a lack of familiarity. It is suggested that companies may mitigate the adverse effects of abusive supervision by developing future orientation culture and facilitating job enrichment, job rotation, and originality incentives. Learning goal orientation also has a mediating impact and alleviates the negative consequences of abusive supervision (Islam et al., 2020). Islam et al (2020) mention that the Islamic work ethic can play a moderating role and dilute the negative outcomes of abusive leadership.
Other cultural domains also have an influence on the way negative leadership styles affect followers’ performance. Collectivism enhances the adverse effect of abusive leadership on employees’ social resources, which results in lower morale, creativity, and performance (Bregenzer et al., 2019). Although previous research found that health-promoting behaviors can mitigate the negative outcomes of abusive leadership in cultures characterized by a high degree of collectivism, Bregenzer et al. (2019) did not identify this kind of effect.
People who differ in terms of high-power and low-power distance are differently affected by the leader’s abusive behaviors. The negative implications of abusive supervision are stronger among the representatives of lower power distance cultures as compared to employees in high-power distance cultures (Park et al., 2017). In the Chinese context, it has been found that high-power-distance employees are more sensitive to abusive supervision and tend to engage more frequently in acquiescent silence (Lam & Xu, 2018). These employees are also unwilling to provide feedback, which is a common outcome of abusive leadership. Lam and Xu (2018) added that strong political organizational setting moderates considerably the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ silence and power distance orientation. High power orientation serves as a moderating factor that prevents employees’ deviant behaviors irrespective of the degree of the leader’s abusive behaviors (Hussain & Sia, 2017).
Masculinity contest cultures are characterized by a high level of abusive leadership in the work environment. This cultural domain is associated with high competitiveness, goal orientation, high levels of stress, and work/life conflict. The focus on goal attainment and achievements makes masculine cultures more prone to abusive supervision (Zhang et al., 2019). Moreover, employees’ reactions to abusive supervision differ in masculine and feminine cultural domains. The former is characterized by increased counterproductive work behavior in the presence of abusive leadership. Therefore, in masculine cultures, leaders’ abusive behavior results in enhanced adverse work outcomes as the performance of employees deteriorates substantially. The mediating factors for both cultures are organizational justice and work-related stress. Organizational justice displays a strong moderating effect, especially when ethical leadership is utilized. Nevertheless, Matos et al. (2018) described a surprising attitude of employees who displayed high work meaningfulness and work engagement irrespective of the toxic leadership style of their supervisors.
The experiences of immigrants and their response to abusive supervision also differ from the reactions of the majority of employees. One of the coping strategies for some immigrants is the rejection of cultural heritage that they find to be one of the primary reasons for their leaders’ abusive behaviors (Bernardo et al., 2018). Detachment from their heritage impairs immigrants’ physical state and mental health and can lead to rather negative outcomes, so abusive supervision may have detrimental effects on immigrants’ wellbeing.
Major Trends in Abusive Supervision Research
The research regarding abusive leadership is rather extensive, but some aspects still need further investigation. Zhang and Liu (2018) identified six emerging trends in abusive supervision research, including team-level climate, comparisons of theoretical perspectives, coworker impact, comparisons of objective and perceived behaviors, reciprocity, and abusive supervision inconsistency. Researches also explore the effects of inconsistent leadership when supervisors utilize transformational leadership and abusive supervision in different or even similar contexts (Mullen et al., 2018). Certain attention has been paid to the relationship between abusive leadership and the identity of the leader and followers (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Different dimensions of identity formation have been explored although diverse gaps remain unaddressed, including but not confined to antecedents and moderating factors.
Ethical leadership, morality, and ethics have become common concepts in recent research in abusive leadership. For instance, leaders’ moral identity and ethical behaviors are regarded as potent mediators and factors responsible for the decrease of abusive behaviors (Taylor et al., 2019). Subordinates with higher moral identity levels are affected more significantly both directly and indirectly by abusive supervision. For instance, supervisors experiencing abuse from their managers tend to choose less abusive leadership with their subordinated due to the disidentification with these abusive mangers. Therefore, the development of a strong culture based on high moral standards can mitigate the negative effects of abusive leadership.
The methodology used to explore diverse aspects of the phenomenon has also been discussed in academia. The negative impact of abusive leadership on employee performance, workplace environment, and other outcomes appears to be universal while the magnitude of the link between outcomes and antecedents of abusive supervision varies based on the studies’ design peculiarities (Mackey et al., 2017). Mackey et al. (2017) implemented a comprehensive meta-analysis and found that Tepper’s abusive supervision measurement was used in the reviewed studies, but the method was modified in various cases. The focus on frequency and the use of agreement scales were some of the most common alternations. These modifications were associated with certain differences in results regarding the magnitude of abusive leadership, which shows that perceived abusive behavior differs due to diverse factors.
Considerable attention is paid towards the strategies organizations can utilize to avoid abusive leadership or mitigate its negative outcomes. The enhancement of employees’ psychological capital is one of the methods to mitigate the impact of abusive supervision (Raza et al., 2019). The minimization of abusive leadership can be achieved through various human resources methods, as well as staff training and development (Eissa & Lester, 2017). The focus on personal traits and diverse competencies development in leaders can minimize abusive supervision. Leaders can be trained to gain such skills as self-control, emotional intelligence, as well as time management, to name a few. Training for leaders may encompass the development of skills necessary for the use of supportive supervision strategies (Gonzalez-Morales et al., 2018). The focus can be on benevolence, experiential processing, fairness, and sincerity, which leads to the development of a favorable workplace environment and enhances employees’ motivation and productivity.
Both subordinates and leaders can also receive training regarding possible health-related outcomes of abusive behavior and different types of responses, which will be instrumental in making employees more responsible and willing to comply with high ethical standards (Lopes et al., 2018). When choosing the most appropriate training interventions, it is critical to it is important to pay attention to such cultural domains as power distance, collectivism, future orientation and other dimensions (Bregenzer et al., 2019; Zhang & Liu, 2018). Since employees perceive abusive supervision differently, their responses to abusive leadership and the coping strategies to be acquired tend to differ.
The creation of effective organizational culture is another goal as strong culture based on high moral standards and proactive relationships facilitated by psychological capital and different competences is regarded as a potential solution that can minimize abusive leadership and address its negative effects if leaders’ abusive behaviors persist (Ju et al., 2019). Suggested models and frameworks differ in terms of their focus and contexts, but they are aimed at reducing abusive leadership outcomes rather than the complete elimination of this phenomenon.
The development of the proactive organizational culture facilitating collaboration among employees has gained momentum in academia. Samreen et al. (2019) note that proper relationships among abused employees play a mediating role, and employees continue performing their tasks effectively. Hence, it is important to develop the environment in which such relationships could be possible. Choi et al. (2018) stress that employees’ ability to fulfill the psychological contract has a positive effect on knowledge sharing and organization performance. Although employees may face some types of abusive supervision, the adverse outcomes of these practices are mitigated in the atmosphere of psychological contract fulfillment.
The focus on fairness and ethical efficacy is another essential approach to adopt when creating the premises for an appropriate working atmosphere and organizational culture. It has been found that in such settings, employees collaborate and support each other, which has a positive effect on their performance and productivity (Priesemuth & Schminke, 2019). The development of transparent principles and norms can be the basis for eliminating abusive supervision practices and enhancing employees’ resilience to this phenomenon. Raising employees’ awareness of moral principles and standards as well as their effects on the working environment is seen as a method to build resilience and minimize the occurrence of abusive practices (Guo et al., 2020). Thus, staff training should include the corresponding discussions and workshops.
Organizations should ensure the persistence of procedural justice and clear standards that are properly formalized. Ramdeo and Singh (2019) state that procedural justice is a potent mitigating factor neutralizing the negative effects of workplace abuse. Wang et al. (2020) also suggest a set of measures to prevent employees from using abusive supervision. The researchers note that employees’ evaluation of the performance (and supervision) of managers that influences their pay can be one of the effective measures ensuring the use of proper leadership. The development of the culture of collaboration can also be beneficial for organizations because it can diminish the risk of devastating negative effects of workplace abuse. Employees would find support and develop resilience to cope with abusive supervision and remain committed to organizational goals.
The review also addresses such aspects as the influence of culture and personal traits on employee performance under abusive supervision. It is clear that individual features, as well as cultural backgrounds, shape people’s attitudes and reactions to abusive leadership, which has to be considered when developing an effective organizational culture and launching educational incentives for employees. Training and staff development are seen as the most appropriate strategies to utilize to diminish abusive supervision and mitigates its negative workplace outcomes. Although diverse peculiarities of the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance have been explored, certain gaps remain unaddressed.
Further research may be concerned with interventions to eliminate or diminish the relationship between abusive leadership and employee productivity, as well as the development of an effective methodology to ensure the validity of obtained results and avoid any possible bias. Tariq and Ding (2018) note that the major focus has been placed on the frequency of abusive supervision practice, while the impact of the intensity of workplace abuse remains obscure and needs detailed consideration. This area can be further explored in terms of the impact abusive supervision intensity and frequency on employees’ performance and productivity, as well as organizational culture.
It is also possible to improve the current research on the matter by the utilization of a wider range of research designs and methods. Qualitative studies may enrich the corresponding knowledge base on the way abusive supervision can be effectively addressed, as seen by the victims of such supervisory methods. More research is needed in the field of the evaluation of the existing interventions aimed at diminishing workplace violence.
References
Akram, Z., Li, Y., & Akram, U. (2019). When employees are emotionally exhausted due to abusive supervision. A conservation-of-resources perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), 1-17. Web.
Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2019). Do frontline employees cope effectively with abusive supervision and customer incivility? Testing the effect of employee resilience. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 223-240. Web.
Ambrose, M. L., & Ganegoda, D. B. (2020). Abusive according to whom? Manager and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisors’ performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(8), 737-756. Web.
Barling, J., Akers, A., & Beiko, D. (2018). The impact of positive and negative intraoperative surgeons’ leadership behaviors on surgical team performance. The American Journal of Surgery, 215(1), 14-18. Web.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Daganzo, M. A. A., & Ocampo, A. C. G. (2018). Abusive supervision and well-being of Filipino migrant workers in Macau: Consequences for self-esteem and heritage culture detachment. Social Indicators Research, 139(1), 277-292. Web.
Blum, D. (2017). Abusive supervision detection as part of venture capital due diligence of management. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 133-151.
Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2018). Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 338–349.
Bregenzer, A., Felfe, J., Bergner, S., & Jiménez, P. (2019). How followers’ emotional stability and cultural value orientations moderate the impact of health-promoting leadership and abusive supervision on health-related resources. German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 33(4), 307-336. Web.
Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 64-75. Web.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Occupational violence. Web.
Choi, W., Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2018). A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: investigating the moderating effects of psychological contract fulfillment and self-enhancement motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 305-319. Web.
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307-326.
Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104-129.
Feng, J., & Wang, C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1455-1474.
Fischer, T., Tian, A. M., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-15. Web.
Ghani, U., Teo, T., Li, Y., Usman, M., Islam, Z. U., Gul, H., Naeem, R. M., Bahadar, H., Yuan, J., & Zhai, X. (2020). Tit for tat: Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding-the role of psychological contract breach and psychological ownership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1-16. Web.
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2018). Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 151–162. Web.
Greenbaum, R. L., Hill, A., Mawritz, M. B., & Quade, M. J. (2017). Employee Machiavellianism to unethical behavior. Journal of Management, 43(2), 585-609. Web.
Guo, L., Zhao, H., Cheng, K., & Luo, J. (2020). The relationship between abusive supervision and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(3), 369-381. Web.
Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 21-31. Web.
Haryanto, B., & Cahyono, E. (2019). Relationship between abusive supervision and performance: The role of gender. European Research Studies Journal, XXII(3), 305-311. Web.
He, Q., Wu, M., Wu, W., & Fu, J. (2021). The effect of abusive supervision on employees’ work procrastination behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-12. Web.
Hongbo, L., Waqas, M., Tariq, H., Nana Abena, A. A., Akwasi, O. C., & Ashraf, S. F. (2020). I will hurt you for this, when and how subordinates take revenge from abusive supervisors: A perspective of displaced revenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-13. Web.
Huang, L., Su, C., Lin, C., & Lu, S. (2019). The influence of abusive supervision on employees’ motivation and extra-role behaviors. Chinese Management Studies, 13(3), 514-530.
Hussain, I., & Sia, S. K. (2017). Power distance orientation dilutes the effect of abusive supervision on workplace deviance. Management and Labour Studies, 42(4), 293-305.
Hussain, K., Abbas, Z., Gulzar, S., Jibril, A. B., & Hussain, A. (2020). Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1-22. Web.
Islam, T., Ahmad, S., Kaleem, A., & Mahmood, K. (2020). Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: moderating roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation. Management Decision, XX(XX). Web.
Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T., Bouckenooghe, D., & Bashir, F. (2019). The knowledge hiding link: A moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision affects employee creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 810-819. Web.
Ju, D., Xu, M., Qin, X., & Spector, P. (2019). A multilevel study of abusive supervision, norms, and personal control on counterproductive work behavior: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 163-178. Web.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A. K., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 794-806.
Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & Crawshaw, J. R. (2017). Double jeopardy: Subordinates’ worldviews and poor performance as predictors of abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(2), 165-178.
Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2018). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2801-2826.
Kluemper, D. H., Mossholder, K. W., Ispas, D., Bing, M. N., Iliescu, D., & Ilie, A. (2019). When core self-evaluations influence employees’ deviant reactions to abusive supervision: The moderating role of cognitive ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 435-453. Web.
Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2018). Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership, power distance orientation, and perceived organisational politics. Applied Psychology, 68(3), 513-546. Web.
Lange, S., Bormann, K. C., & Rowold, J. (2018). Mindful leadership: Mindfulness as a new antecedent of destructive and transformational leadership behavior. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 49(2), 139-147. Web.
Liang, L. H., Hanig, S., Evans, R., Brown, D. J., & Lian, H. (2018). Why is your boss making you sick? A longitudinal investigation modeling time-lagged relations between abusive supervision and employee physical health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1050-1065.
Liu, Y., Gul, H., Zhang, J., Raza, J., & Usman, M. (2020). Abusive supervision and suicidal ideation: The potential role of meaning in life. Deviant Behavior, 1-12.
Liu, Y., & Liu, X. Y. (2018). Politics under abusive supervision: The role of Machiavellianism and guanxi. European Management Journal, 36(5), 649-659. Web.
Lopes, B. C., Kamau, C., & Jaspal, R. (2018). Coping with perceived abusive supervision: The role of paranoia. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 237-255. Web.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. Web.
Matos, K., O’Neill, O. M., & Lei, X. (2018). Toxic leadership and the masculinity contest culture: How “win or die” cultures breed abusive leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 500-528.
Mullen, J., Fiset, J., & Rhéaume, A. (2018). Destructive forms of leadership: The effects of abusive supervision and incivility on employee health and safety. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(8), 946-961.
Ng, T. W. H. (2017). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 385-417. Web.
Nielsen, M. B., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2017). Exposure to workplace harassment and the Five Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 195-206. Web.
Niessen, C., Mäder, I., Stride, C., & Jimmieson, N. (2017). Thriving when exhausted: The role of perceived transformational leadership. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 41-51. Web.
Para-González, L., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2018). Exploring the mediating effects between transformational leadership and organizational performance. Employee Relations, 40(2), 412-432. Web.
Park, H., Choi, W., & Kang, S.-W. (2020). When is the negative effect of abusive supervision on task performance mitigated? An empirical study of public service officers in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 1-10. Web.
Park, H., Hoobler, J. M., Wu, J., Liden, R. C., Hu, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2017). Abusive supervision and employee deviance: A multifoci justice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1113-1131.
Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2019). How and when does abusive supervision affect hospitality employees’ service sabotage? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 190-197.
Peltokorpi, V. (2018). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of power distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 251-275.
Peng, Y., Xu, X., & Matthews, R. (2020). Older and less deviant reactions to abusive supervision? A moderated mediation model of age and cognitive reappraisal. Work, Aging and Retirement, XX(XX), 1-11.
Pradhan, S., Jena, L. K., & Mohapatra, M. (2018). Role of gender on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s intention to quit in Indian electricity distribution companies. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 33(4), 282-295. Web.
Priesemuth, M., & Schminke, M. (2019). Helping thy neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision in the workplace. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1225-1251. Web.
Qin, X., Dust, S. B., DiRenzo, M. S., & Wang, S. (2019). Negative creativity in leader-follower relations: A daily investigation of leaders’ creative mindset, moral disengagement, and abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-18. Web.
Ramdeo, S., & Singh, R. (2019). Abusive supervision, co-worker abuse and work outcomes: Procedural justice as a mediator. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 7(3), 325-341.
Raza, B., Ahmed, A., Zubair, S., & Moueed, A. (2019). Linking workplace deviance and abusive supervision: Moderating role of positive psychological capital. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 8(1), 95-111. Web.
Robertson, J. L., Dionisi, A. M., & Barling, J. (2018). Linking attachment theory to abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(2), 214-228. Web.
Ronen, S., & Donia, M. B. L. (2020). Stifling my fire: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ motivation and ensuing outcomes at work. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 36(3), 205-214. Web.
Sahu, S., Pathardikar, A., & Kumar, A. (2018). Transformational leadership and turnover. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(1), 82-99.
Saleem, S., Yusaf, S., Sarwar, N., Raziq, M. M., & Malik, O. F. (2018). Linking abusive supervision to psychological distress and turnover intentions among police personnel: The moderating role of continuance commitment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4451-4471.
Samreen, F., Amir Rashid, M., & Hussain, G. (2019). Effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ discretionary behaviors. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-16.
Sannes, A. C., Christensen, J. O., Nielsen, M. B., & Gjerstad, J. (2021). The association between abusive supervision and anxiety in female employees is stronger in carriers of the CRHR1 TAT haplotype. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1-6.
Shen, C., Yang, J., & Hu, S. (2020a). Combined effect of abusive supervision and abusive supervision climate on employee creativity: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-10.
Shen, C., Yang, J., Hu, S., He, P., & Li, X. (2020b). The role of mindfulness in coping with and preventing abusive supervision. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(2), 220. Web.
Suifan, T. S., Abdallah, A. B., & Al Janini, M. (2018). The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity. Management Research Review, 41(1), 113-132. Web.
Tahira, B., Saif, N., Haroon, M., & Ali, S. (2019). Relationship between big five personality model and abusive supervision. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 265-276.
Tariq, H., & Ding, D. (2018). Why am I still doing this job? The examination of family motivation on employees’ work behaviors under abusive supervision. Personnel Review, 47(2), 378-402.
Tariq, H., Weng, Q. D., Ilies, R., & Khan, A. K. (2019). Supervisory abuse of high performers: A social comparison perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 280-310.
Taylor, S. G., Griffith, M. D., Vadera, A. K., Folger, R., & Letwin, C. R. (2019). Breaking the cycle of abusive supervision: How disidentification and moral identity help the trickle-down change course. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 164–182.
Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Man Park, H., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343-1368. Web.
Tian, J., Peng, Y., & Zhou, X. (2020). The effects of abusive supervision and motivational preference on employees’ innovative behavior. Sustainability, 12(20), 1-15. Web.
United States Department of Labor. (2020). Workplace violence. Web.
United States government. (2021). Labor laws and issues. Web.
Walsh, M. M., & Arnold, K. A. (2020). The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well‐being. Stress and Health, XX(XX), 1-37.
Wang, R., & Chan, D. K. S. (2020). Subordinate reactions to ethical leaders’ abusive behavior: A multiple‐wave study. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(3), 427-449.
Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 185-195. Web.
Wang, D., Zhao, C., Chen, Y., Maguire, P., & Hu, Y. (2020). The impact of abusive supervision on job insecurity: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 1-14. Web.
Watkins, T., Fehr, R., & He, W. (2017). Whatever it takes: Leader beliefs of abusive supervision instrumentality. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 1-6. Web.
Yang, J. H., Lin, C. C., Fang, S. C., & Huang, C. Y. (2019). An uncertainty management theory on the effects of abusive supervision. Management Decision, 57(11), 3079-3095. Web.
Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 719-744.
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L., & Bednall, T. (2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474-2497.
Zhou, B., Marchand, A., & Guay, S. (2020). Gender differences on mental health, work-family conflicts and alcohol use in response to abusive supervision. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 34(3), 157-167.
Zhu, J., & Zhang, B. (2019). The double-edged sword effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ innovative behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-9.