Microsoft Word - Document13
Assignment Instructions
Journal Article
For this assignment, you will select an article from the Journal of Organizational
Behavior.
You will write a 500–750-word review of the article. Your article needs to discuss or
investigate one or more aspects of organizational behavior as it relates to your Final
Project topic; (Stress, Anger, and Violence in the Workplace) it does not need to
e comprehensive. The article should be one written within the last decade. In your
article review, complete the following tasks.
At the top of the page, cite the article’s source using APA style.
Then, answer these four questions, in one paragraph each:
o What did you learn?
o What surprised you?
o What do you want to learn more about?
o How might you apply what you learned to your Final Project in this
course?
Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Meta-analytic Review
Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Meta-analytic Review
Yucheng Zhang1 • Timothy C. Bednall2
Received: 18 December 2014 / Accepted: 30 March 2015 / Published online: 25 April 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Recent studies of organizational behavior have
witnessed a growing interest in unethical leadership,
leading to the development of abusive supervision re-
search. Given the increasing interest in the causes of abu-
sive supervision, this study proposes an organizing
framework for its antecedents and tests it using meta ana-
lysis. Based on an analysis of effect sizes drawn from 74
studies, comprising 30,063 participants, the relationship
etween abusive supervision and different antecedent
categories are examined. The results generally support
expected relationships across the four categories of abusive
antecedents, including: supervisor related antecedents, or-
ganization related antecedents, subordinate related an-
tecedents, and demographic characteristics of both
supervisors and subordinates. In addition, possible mod-
erators that can also influence the relationships between
abusive supervision and its antecedents are also examined.
The significance and implications of different level factors
in explaining abusive supervision are discussed.
Keywords Abusive supervision � Meta analysis �
Supervisor related antecedents � Organization related
antecedents � Subordinate related antecedents
Introduction
Abusive supervision—‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the
extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display
of hostile ve
al and nonve
al behaviors, excluding phy-
sical contact’’ (Tepper 2000)—is an extremely salient
phenomenon in organizations (Tepper et al XXXXXXXXXXSchat
et al XXXXXXXXXXestimated that more than 13.6 % of employees
have observed abusive supervision at work, or have di-
ectly experienced it from their immediate supervisor.
Numerous surveys have found that that 65–75 % of em-
ployees reported that their boss was the worst part of thei
jobs in any given organization (e.g., Hogan and Kaise
2005). The consequences of abusive supervision include
increased healthcare costs, workplace withdrawal, and lost
productivity (Tepper et al XXXXXXXXXXIt is important to un-
derstand how organizations can minimize the occu
ence of
abusive supervision. Therefore, investigating the an-
tecedents of abusive supervision is both necessary and
urgent.
Although the consequences of abusive supervision are
well known, its antecedents initially received less research
attention (Martinko et al XXXXXXXXXXThe seminal work on
abusive supervision by Tepper XXXXXXXXXXinvestigated the
consequences of abusive supervision. Most subsequent
studies continued this focus and also examined moderators
of the effects of abusive supervision (e.g., Ha
is et al.
2005; Inness et al. 2005; Tepper et al. 2001, XXXXXXXXXXA
ecent meta-analysis summarized the research findings on
the consequences of abusive supervision (Schyns and
Schilling XXXXXXXXXXHowever, a meta-analytic review of the
& Yucheng Zhang
XXXXXXXXXX
Timothy C. Bednall
XXXXXXXXXX
1 Research Institute of Economics and Management,
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,
Chengdu, China
2 Department of Leadership and Management, Swinburne
University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
1 Schyns and Schilling XXXXXXXXXXconducted a meta-analysis on
destructive leadership, which contains abusive supervision as one
type of destructive leadership.
123
J Bus Ethics XXXXXXXXXX:455–471
DOI XXXXXXXXXX/s XXXXXXXXXX
http:
crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s XXXXXXXXXX&domain=pdf
http:
crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s XXXXXXXXXX&domain=pdf
antecedents of abusive supervision has not yet been pro-
duced. Until 2007, Tepper XXXXXXXXXXonly identified three
studies on the antecedents of abusive supervision in his
eview.
Empirical research on the antecedents of abusive su-
pervision only started to proliferate during the last
5 years (e.g., Ha
is et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012; Wu and
Hu XXXXXXXXXXThis growth likely resulted from earlier re-
search findings that abusive supervision has a deleterious
effect on employees, including their in role performance
(Ha
is et al. 2007), well-being (Lin et al. 2013), and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Zellars et al.
2002). As the outcomes of abusive supervision have now
een well studied, a continued focus on its consequences
is unlikely to yield strong theoretical contributions. Thus,
an increasing number of scholars have shifted their at-
tention from the consequences of abusive supervision to
its antecedents (Martinko et al. 2013; Tepper et al.
2011).
Although two na
ative reviews of abusive supervision
antecedents have been published (Martinko et al. 2013;
Tepper 2007), a quantitative analysis of antecedents is still
lacking. A meta-analysis provides at least three advantages
over na
ative reviews. First, meta-analysis provides a
systematic process for collecting primary studies and ap-
plying inclusion criteria. This process ensures a near ex-
haustive coverage of the relevant literature on the topic of
the meta-analysis. Second, meta-analysis combines find-
ings from previous studies, and tests the relationship be-
tween the variables of interest. In doing so, inconsistent
findings can be analyzed, quantified and ultimately re-
solved. Third, meta-analysis enables sample level mod-
erators to be tested, in order to explain any heterogeneity in
findings across studies. Ultimately, meta-analysis provides
greater reliability and generalizability of results, and may
yield theoretical insights that are not apparent in individual
studies.
The objectives of this meta-analysis are fourfold. First,
this meta-analysis empirically tests the relationships be-
tween abusive supervision and its antecedents in previous
studies, so that the inconsistent findings across studies can
e resolved. Second, this meta-analysis tests a set of
moderators thought to influence the relationship between
abusive supervision and its antecedents. Third, based on
the insights previous reviews (Martinko et al. 2013; Teppe
2007) and findings from this meta-analysis, a theoretical
framework is proposed. Finally, this meta-analysis builds
on previous reviews of abusive supervision by focusing
specifically its antecedents. As most research has examined
the consequences of abusive supervision (Schyns and
Schilling 2013), a meta analysis of its antecedents is ur-
gently needed to balance the research.
Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Proposed
Theoretical Framework
This paper builds on the theoretical framework proposed in
the reviews ca
ied out by Tepper XXXXXXXXXXand Martinko
et al XXXXXXXXXXThe antecedents of abusive supervision can
oadly be categorized into supervisor related antecedents,
organization related antecedents, subordinate related an-
tecedents and demographic characteristics of supervisors
and subordinates. Figure 1 presents the theoretical model.
Variables in this model were selected according to the
empirical research conducted so far on the antecedents of
abusive supervision.
Supervisor related antecedents comprise constructs
ased on supervisors’ characteristics, including supervisors’
state, leadership style and personality traits (Aryee et al.
2007; Hoobler and Brass XXXXXXXXXXAggressive norms and the
use of sanctions are classified into organization related an-
tecedents as these variables describe the characteristics of
an organization (Restubog et al XXXXXXXXXXSubordinate related
antecedents include employees’ personality traits and cul-
tural characteristics (Lian et al. 2012a). Although empirical
studies normally use demographic variables of supervisors
and subordinates as control variables, the previous meta
analysis of the relationships between demographic variables
and workplace aggression showed that there are significant
elationships between demographic variables and work-
place aggression (Bowling and Beehr XXXXXXXXXXFocusing on
abusive supervision as a specific type of workplace ag-
gression, this study investigates the role of demographic
characteristics. In theorizing that demographic characteris-
tics produce unique effects, they are neither classified into
supervisor related antecedents nor subordinate related an-
tecedents, but rather placed into an independent category.
Supervisor Related Antecedents
Stressors and Negative Affective State
Supervisors’ interactions with higher organizational levels
influence their affective state and behavior towards thei
subordinates (Hoobler and Hu XXXXXXXXXXAs Aryee et al. (2007)
trickle down model suggests, unequal treatment stemming
from higher levels of the organization influences supervisors
and consequently subordinates. Moreover, supervisors’
negative states can also result from negative interactions with
their co workers. Ha
is et al XXXXXXXXXXfound that supervisors
who experienced more co worker conflicts engaged in greate
abusive behavior towards their subordinates. The relation-
ship between supervisors’ affective states and abusive su-
pervision can be explained by research on displaced
aggression, which holds that people tend to be aggressive to
456 Y. Zhang, T. C. Bednall
123
one party because they were mistreated by another party
(Hoobler and Brass 2006; Restubog et al XXXXXXXXXXCompared
with other people in the organization, subordinates are a
elatively safe target to vent supervisors’ negative state
since subordinates have low retaliatory power (Teppe
et al XXXXXXXXXXFor supervisors who regularly experience such
stressors, abusing subordinates is an emotion focus coping
strategy to alleviate the negative state and stress. On the
contrary, supervisors with more positive affective state will
e less likely to display abusive behaviors due to thei
elatively less need to cope with stress. In the cu
ent
limited number of studies, the focus is on organizational
justice of supervisors’ positive state. Colquitt et al. (2013)
proposed an affect based perspective to understand the
elationship between organizational justice and its out-
comes. Supervisors, who have more positive affect, may
ehave less abusively (Colquitt et al XXXXXXXXXXHence the
following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 1a Abusive supervision is positively related to
stressors that produce a negative affective state (supervisors’
negative experiences, supervisors’ negative affect, supervi-
sor stress, and lack of interactional and procedural justice).
Supervisor Leadership Style
Based on the definition of (Yukl 2006, p. 8), supervisors
organize subordinates to accomplish shared objectives.
Supervisor-related antecedents
Stressors and negative affective state (H1a)
Supervisor interactional justice (-),
Supervisor procedural justice (-),
Supervisors' negative experiences (+),
Supervisors' negative affect (+), Supervisor stress (+)
Supervisors' leadership style (H1b)
Ethical leadership (-), Supportive leadership (-),
Transformational leadership (-), Authoritarian leadership
style (+), Unethical leadership (+)
Supervisors' characteristics (H1c)
Supervisor EI (-), Supervisor power (+),
Supervisors' Machiavellianism (+)
Abusive
Supervision
Organization related antecedents (H2)
Organizational sanctions (-), Aggressive norm (+)
Subordinate related antecedents (H3)
Political skill (-), Stability (-), Cynical attribution (+),
Negative affectivity (+), Power distance (+), Supervisor
directed attribution (+), Traditionality (+), Narcissism (+),
Neuroticism (+), Conscientiousness (-), Extraversion (-),
Agreeableness (-)
Demographic characteristics of supervisors and
subordinates (H4)
Supervisors' age (-), Supervisors' gender (+), Subordinates’
organizational tenure (-), Subordinates’ age (+),
Subordinates’ gender (+), Working