The Impact of
Abusive Supervision on Subordinates
Iram Ahmad
International Islamic University Islamabad
Abstract:
Purpose: The main purpose of the study is to identify the
moderating role of self-control capacity and its impact on Abusive Supervision
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Design/methodology/approach: The data
used in this study is cross-sectional in nature. Convenience sampling technique
was used to collect the data. Sample size was 300 and for this purpose we have
approached teachers of universities and responses are traced through
questionnaire method. Statistical tools regression and correlation to compile
results.
Findings: The research has found that
there is strong negative relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs. The
self-control capacity has moderated effect on this negative relationship.
Research Limitations: The research can be
conducted on longitudinal period in future.
Practical implications: The current
study has emphasized on individuals to manage their self-control capacity. As
it is clear from existing study, the abusive supervision can affect the
organization as a whole when an employee decreases their OCBs. Management
should also understand the issues of the employees and try to handle them
timely rather than indulging in abusive supervisory towards subordinates.
Key words: Abusive
supervision, Self control capacity, OCB
1. Introduction:
Abusive
supervision is mostly studied topic in past two decades because it is a common
practice in today’s organizational cultures. Abusive supervision is a non
physical aggressive behavior of a supervisor toward his/her subordinates
(Tepper et al., 2008). Abusive supervisors affects overall environment of an
organization with their belligerent behaviors. The one who is abused will feel
aggravation, lower self control and uncomfortable in this environment
(Ashforth, 1997). Employees are the assets for an organization. Losing their
self-control could be destructive for an organization as well as their own
selves. Abusive supervision affects subordinate performance (Chirtopher et al.,
2015). Some supervisors are always abusive and others are abusive under
specific circumstances. The behavior of an abusive supervisor amended on daily
bases (Johnson et al., 2012). It also varies from employee to employee. The
person who is not interacting with supervisor on daily bases are less abused. Being
a part of higher level in organization an individual is more powerful and
lesser abused by his supervisor than a lower level employee (Grandey and Kern.,
2004). Some people with are practically self regulated, A good working
relationship with co-workers is basically not the part of job for any employee (Organ,
1988). But if he is holding his self while being abused by his supervisor he is
showing his workplace responsibility for not arguing with supervisor.
Past
researches are arguing about abusive supervision and its outcomes like
aggression, job performance, job satisfaction, motivation, turn-over intentions
etc but still affect of self-control capacity of subordinates on overall OCB is
lacking. In this study we are presenting a model in which self control capacity
is moderation between abusive supervision and OCBs of subordinates. It will
ultimately help to understand the behavior of an abused employee who is working
under his own self regulatory process.
Ultimate goals
of this study are to provide help to understand the behavior of subordinates
that when and why they are engaged in working proficiently under abusive
supervision. And how their self control capacity helps them while they are
facing an abusive supervisor, Basic idea for moderating role of self control
capacity is taken from Huiwen at el,. (2014) who argued that self-control
capacity control individual’s reactions. Present research is answering
following question.
Is self
control capacity of subordinates can restrain the negative consequences of
abusive supervision on subordinate’s OCB?
Our research
is providing a better understanding toward subordinate’s reactions toward
abusive supervision. It helps an abusive supervisor to get a better idea about the
compulsion under which his subordinate is behaving well in organization. On the
other hand it is helping out a subordinate that how he could show endurance
toward an abusive supervisor after controlling his inner emotions. Our research
contributes in a scenario where self control capacity of subordinate limits the
negative consequences of abusive supervision. The practice of self control
capacity from subordinates will eventually confine retaliation toward
supervisor and bad attitude toward co-workers. It’s important to maintain a
better environment for better
1.1 Research problem statement
“To examine the
moderating role of self-control capacity between abusive supervision and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors”
1.2 Research objectives
Ultimate goal
of this study is to provide help in understanding the behavior of subordinates
that when and why they are engaged in working proficiently under abusive
supervision. Another objective of this research is how self control capacity of
individuals helps them while they are facing an abusive supervisor. Basic idea
for moderating role of self control capacity is taken from (Huiwen at el,.
2014) who argued that self-control capacity control individual’s reactions.
1.3 Research questions
Is there negative
relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs?
Is self
control capacity of subordinates can restrain the negative consequences of
abusive supervision on subordinate’s OCB?
1.4 Significance/contribution-theoretical/practical
Our research
is providing a better understanding toward subordinate’s reactions toward
abusive supervision. It helps an abusive supervisor to get a better idea about
the compulsion under which his subordinate is behaving well in organization. On
the other hand it is helping out a subordinate that how he could show endurance
toward an abusive supervisor after controlling his inner emotions. Our research
contributes in a scenario where self control capacity of subordinate limits the
negative consequences of abusive supervision. The practice of self control
capacity from subordinates will eventually confine retaliation toward
supervisor and bad attitude toward co-workers. It’s important to maintain a
better environment for better outcomes.
2.
Literature
review:
Self control Capacity of Subordinates
|
As
explained in (Tepper, 2000: 178). Abusive supervision is considered as sustained
exhibition of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, of supervisors toward
subordinates, as perceived by subordinates. The abusive supervision has persistent
and negative effects on employees working in organizations.
Tepper
(2007: 265) also noted that Abusive supervisory by supervisors toward
subordinates involves continued exposure to mistreatment. A boss who has a bad
day and blows all the frustration out on his or her subordinates would not be
considered an abusive supervisor unless such behavior became a regular feature
of his day to day routine. Examples of abusive supervision include lying, public
ridicule, screaming at employees, disrespectful interactions, withholding
needed information, rudeness toward subordinates, threats, silent treatments, ,
and inappropriate expressions of anger. Organizational Citizenship Behavior is
characterized by the aim to make a positive contribution to the functioning of
the organization (Bowling, 2010; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Organ 1997). It is
also known as extra-role behavior. In
contrast of formal job descriptions, OCBs are optional, positive employee behaviors
that are directed toward organization’s performance, but are not part of the
employee’s official job description (Organ, 1988).
There are five dimensions of
OCB. They are as follows (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al, 1990):
1. Altruism:
The helping of an individual coworker on a task; voluntary actions that help a
fellow employee in work related problems.
2. Civic virtue:
Participating in the governance of the organization; voluntary participation
in, and support of, organizational functions of both a professional and social
nature.
3. Conscientiousness:
minimum requirements; a pattern of going well beyond minimally required role
and task requirements.
4. Courtesy:
Alerting others in the organization about changes that may affect their work;
the discretionary enactment of thoughtful and considerate behaviors that
prevent work related problems for others.
5. Sportsmanship:
Refraining from complaining about trivial matters; a willingness to tolerate
the inevitable inconveniences and impositions that result in an organization
without complaining and doing so with a positive attitude.
Subordinates’
perceptions of their relationships with supervisors are shaped by the current
condition of the relationship, as well as by past interactions and future
expectations of interactions with their supervisor (George and Jones, 2000). Employees
engage in positive OCBs that benefit the organization when helping another
coworker with work-related problems, when providing a coworker psychological
support and comfort, when performing extra duties without complaint, and/or
when communicating positive aspects of the organization to outsiders. Employees
may withhold psychological support and comfort to others, along with other
citizenship behaviors, due to a variety of reasons. Zellars et al. (2002)
demonstrate empirical support for the notion that subordinates, in response to
abusive supervision, may withhold OCBs as the discretionary nature of OCBs
makes withholding them a relatively safe option for retaliation against their supervisor’s
abuse. Subordinates offer OCBs in response to supportive leadership and
positive situational factors, and withhold OCBs in response to non-supportive
leadership and negative situational factors. In essence, employees react when they are
frustrated by a loss of personal control by engaging in behaviors they believe
will help to restore their sense of control (Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Zellars et
al., 2002). In response to perceptions of unfair treatment, some subordinates
will restore their sense of balance in terms of freedom, autonomy and control
by withholding behaviors that the organization values, in a “tit-for-tat”
manner. Social exchange scholars (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964), describe social
behavior as an exchange of resources, both material and non-material, between
multiple parties, where individuals evaluate the costs and benefits of
exchanging with current partners. The abused employee may perceive that they
have received less valuable resources from their supervisor (e.g. Intimidation,
threats, or inappropriate expressions of anger) than would an employee whose
supervisor demonstrates supportive leadership behaviors (e.g. Coaching or
mentoring). In order to bring an abused employee’s relationship with the
abusive supervisor back into equilibrium, the employee may either seek to
reduce the value of the intangible resources that they provide to their manager
(e.g. Motivation, commitment, OCBs, etc.), or maybe even exhibit
counterproductive behaviors that will allow them to “get even” (Richard et al.,
2002; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Although some employees may respond to
abusive supervision with destructive behaviors such as organizational deviance
(Thau et al., 2009; Tepper et al., 2008), the power differential between
supervisors and subordinates makes it unlikely that the subordinates will
respond with identical action to their more powerful abusers (Zellars et al.,
2002). Zellars et al. (2002) base their argument for the negative relationship
between abusive supervision and OCBs on reactance theory (Brehm and Brehm,
1981), as abused subordinates feel less control over their lives (Ashforth,
1997) and try to restore that control by exercising discretion and autonomy in
their activities (Wright and Brehm, 1982). Zellars et al. (2002) suggest that
since OCBs are discretionary, subordinates may withhold them to retaliate
against abusive supervisors and to hold their company somewhat responsible for
their supervisor’s behavior (Tepper, 2000). Based on these theoretical
arguments, we offer the following hypothesis:
H1.
Abusive supervision will be negatively related to subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behaviors.
In a broad stroke, this model
suggests that workplace stressors cause negative emotions, which motivate
deviant behavior. Moreover, the strength of these emotional reactions predicts
the strength of deviant responses. Correspondingly, negative emotions also
predict the desire for revenge (McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson,
2001).
Moderating role of self-control capacity:
Self-control refers to a enthusiastic
behavior in which individual deals under controlled manners (Tangney et al.,
2004). Previously it was discovered that self control capacity is a barrier for
abusive supervision (Lian, et al. 2012) The present research will extend the
self-control account of supervisor-directed retaliation by integrating it with
predictions from the stressor-emotion model. In previous researches it is suggested
that, although supervisor-directed retaliation is thought to be the result of
ego depletion (Thau & Mitchel, 2010; Lian et al., 2012), pessimistic
emotions will lead subordinates toward revenge again his/her supervisor (Hofmann
et al., 2012; McCulloguh et al., 2001; Liu, Kwan, Wu, & Wu, 2010). While
everyone may experience moments of ego depletion, research has shown that there
are individual differences in the extent to which people are able to
consistently engage self-controlled behavior (Tangney et al., 2004).
American
social psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues proposed a model that
relates self-control to a muscle, which can become both strengthened and
fatigued. Initial use of the “muscle” of self-control will cause a decrease in
strength, or ego depletion, for subsequent tasks. Multiple experimental
findings show support for this muscle model of self-control and ego depletion.
This
theory by Roy Baumeister proposed that self-control cause decrease in strength.
The abusive supervision is stressor and that leads to decrease in low OCBs. The
individuals who are low at controlling their self, this negative relationship
will be strengthened. Because when subordinates are abused, they drain their
ego and lose self-control and hence decrease their extra-role behavior.
The
Conservation of Resources (COR) Model (Hobfoll, 1989) includes several stress
theories. According to this model, Individual get stressed when they feel fear
of losing resources. Conflicts on workplace can lead toward losing resources
such as energy, confidence and incase of abusive supervision if subordinates
are not having enough self control capacity they will lose their self esteem as
well as they may show their anger toward other co-workers or assets of
organization. Losing self control can make individuals aggressive and somehow
sadistic.
Thus,
on the basis of above literature, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis
2: The self-control capacity moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and OCBs such that this negative relationship will be strengthen
when self-control-capacity is low.
3.
Methodology:
We took 300
professors from different universities as sample, within Pakistan. They were
asked to fill questionnaires which were completed and returned by
respondents.
All items were answered on 5
likert scale. Where 1 was indicating Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neural, 4
Agree, 5 strongly agree. We analyzed data by using statistical tools regression
and correlation we compile our results. In addition, CFA (confirmatory factor
analysis) was applied to check whether further analysis is required are not. We
checked the compatibility and crone-back alphas for all variables taken.
4.
Appendix
Impact of
Abusive Supervision on Subordinate’s OCB
Good day!
The purpose of this study is to check the impact of abusive
supervision on subordinate. Your provided data is valuable for us and we
promise your provided information will not be shared with anyone. Feel free to
tell us your true opinion.
Please tick (✓) in the box to indicate how
agreeable you are with following statements on a scale of 1 (Strongly
Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neural), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree)
Section (A)
Abusive supervision
Tepper , 2000
My supervisor,
|
Strongly
Disagree
1
|
Disagree
2
|
Neutral
3
|
Agree
4
|
Strongly
Agree
5
|
Ridicules me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gives me the silent treatment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puts me down in front of others
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invades
my privacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't
give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breaks promises he/she makes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes negative comments about me to others
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is rude to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tells me I'm incompetent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lies to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section (B)
Self Control
Tangney et al. (2004)
|
Strongly
Disagree
1
|
Disagree
2
|
Neutral
3
|
Agree
4
|
Strongly
Agree
5
|
I am good at resisting temptation
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a hard time breaking bad habits
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say inappropriate things
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am lazy
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I had more self-discipline
|
|
|
|
|
|
I refuse things that are bad for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
People would say that I have iron self- discipline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it
is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
I often act without thinking through all the alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have trouble concentrating
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section (C)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Podsakoff, P.M.,
MacKenzi, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990)
|
Strongly
Disagree
1
|
Disagree
2
|
Neutral
3
|
Agree
4
|
Strongly
Agree
5
|
I help others who have heavy work load
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do my job without constant requests from my boss
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not waste time complaining
about trivial matters
|
|
|
|
|
|
I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep abreast of changes in the organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to magnify problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not consider the impact of my
actions on co-workers
|
|
|
|
|
|
I attend meetings that are not
mandatory, but important
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am always ready to give a helping
hand to those around me
|
|
|
|
|
|
I attend functions that are not
required, but help the company image
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read and keep up with
organization announcements, memos, and so on
|
|
|
|
|
|
I help others who have been absent
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect the rights of people that
work with me
|
|
|
|
|
|
I willingly help others who have
work related problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always focus on what is right,
rather than what is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take steps to try to avoid
problems with other workers
|
|
|
|
|
|
My attendance at work is above the
norm
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always find fault with what the
organization is doing (R)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am mindful of how my behavior
affects other people’s jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not take extra breaks
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect company rules and
policies even when no one is watching me
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guide new people even though it
is not required
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am one of the most conscientious
employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section (D)
PLEASE TELL US ABOUT
YOURSELF:
Instructions: Please
tick (✓) appropriate answer below:
Name (optional)
_______________________
Email
________________________________
Gender
Male___ Female___
Age 20-29____ 30-39____ 40 & above___
Education
Bachelors___ Masters__ PhD__
Organizational Sector Education____ Private
Sector____ Public Sector____
Your designation
__________________________
Tenure
Less than 1 year___ 1-3 years____ 3-5____ above 5____
Thank you!
Wish you all the best in your career and life
References
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a
preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences”, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 126-140.
Feather,
N. T. & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in
relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and
identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81‐94.
Grandey, A.A. and Kern, J. (2004), “Biting the hand that
serves them: when does customer aggression predict employee exhaustion?”,
unpublished manuscript, Penn State University, University Park, PA
George,
J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2000), “The role of time in theory and theory building”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 657-684.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new
attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3),
513.
Hofmann, W. & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot
spot in self-control research.Current Directions in Psychological Science,
21, 317-322.
Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang,
C. H. 2012. Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency
of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97: 1262–1272.
Lian, H., Brown, D., & Feriss, D. L., et al. (2012).
Abusive supervision and retaliations: A self-control framework. Academy of
Management Journal, Advance online publication,1-56.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Long-zeng, W., & Wu, W. (2010).
Abusive supervision and
subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating
role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 835-856.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., &
Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness,
rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Posdakoff,
P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review of theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513‐563.
Tepper,
B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43: 178–190.
Tepper,
B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261–289.
Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacalone, R.A.
and Duffy, M.K. (2008), “Abusive supervision and subordinate’s organization
deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 721-732.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or
self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor
abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive
justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009-1031.
Zellars
et al. (2002) demonstrate empirical support for the notion that subordinates,
in response to abusive supervision, may withhold OCBs as the discretionary
nature of OCBs makes withholding them a relatively safe option for retaliation
against their supervisor’s abuse.
Zellars,
K.L., Tepper, B.T. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and
subordinate’s organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1068-1076.