Article 7

Management Decision
Examining links between abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and outcomes

Upasna A. Agarwal,
Downloaded by SHAHEED ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO INST OF SCI & TECH KARACHI At 00:29 27 February 2019 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Upasna A. Agarwal, (2018) "Examining links between abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and
outcomes", Management Decision, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2017-0103
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2017-0103
Downloaded on: 27 February 2019, At: 00:29 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 186 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 167 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Workplace bullying and employee silence: A moderated mediation model of psychological
contract violation and workplace friendship", Personnel Review, Vol. 47 Iss 1 pp. 226-256 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0071">https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0071</a>
(2018),"Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: the moderating role of organizational tenure",
Personnel Review, Vol. 47 Iss 1 pp. 22-38 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0199">https://
doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0199</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543736 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Abusive
Examining links between supervision,
abusive supervision, PsyCap, PsyCap, LMX
and outcomes
LMX and outcomes
Upasna A. Agarwal
Human Resources and Organization Behaviour Area,
Received 3 February 2017
NITIE, Mumbai, India Revised 27 February 2018
6 July 2018
Accepted 15 September 2018
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a moderated mediation model wherein abusive
supervision predicts subordinate’s stress and turnover intentions through Psychological Capital (PsyCap).
Leader–member exchange (LMX) moderates the abusive supervision-outcome relationship through PsyCap.
Design/methodology/approach – Two wave data were collected from 1,193 full-time employees across
organizations in India.
Findings – Results suggest that abusive supervision is significantly related to intention to quit and perceive
stress, and this relationship is partially mediated by PsyCap. The findings from the moderated mediation
analysis revealed that the mediation of PsyCap was moderated by LMX such that at the higher levels of LMX,
the mediation effect of PsyCap on workout comes became stronger.
Research limitations/implications – As the study did not cover all sectors, the results of this study
should be interpreted with caution.
Originality/value – Embedded in the conservation of resources theory, this study adds to the knowledge of
how abusive supervision and LMX jointly affect PsyCap, turnover intentions and perceived stress. The
results of this study indicate that abusive supervision exerts its influence on work-related outcomes and
highlights the importance of taking the quality of relationship (LMX) with supervisor and personal resources
into consideration when making sense of the influence of abusive supervision with employee outcomes. The
study extends the current research stream of abusive supervision research to one of the underrepresented
developing Asian countries, India.
Keywords LMX, Abusive supervision, PsyCap
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The topic of leadership holds an important place in the management literature with literally
thousands of studies exploring the impact of leader’s behavior on work outcomes (Walumbwa
et al., 2008). It is well documented that “those in the leadership positions have the capacity to
be destructive” (Tierney and Tepper, 2007, p. 171), yet traditionally there has been
preponderance of research focus on examining the constructive side of leadership (Černe et al.,
2013; Tepper et al., 2017). Due to the growing frequency, intensity and deleterious effects of
destructive leadership behaviors on employee motivation (Baumeister et al., 2001; Baranik
et al., 2010; Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Taylor, 1991), the subject has gained interest of
researchers and professionals alike (Oh and Farh, 2017). Abusive supervision is one such
emotionally salient leadership behavior, defined as “subordinate’s perceptions of the extent to
which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors,
excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178), resulting in subordinate’s proclivities to
engage in dysfunctional behaviors at work.
Despite growing focus and an impressive empirical body of work on abusive supervision
since 2007, including two reviews (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007) and one meta-analysis
(Mackey et al., 2015), several important but unanswered questions remain. First, whilst
the impact of abusive supervision on work outcomes is well documented, there is paucity Management Decision
of research studies examining its underlying mechanisms. Consequently, our understanding © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
why abusive supervision influences work outcomes is limited (Mackey et al., 2015; DOI 10.1108/MD-02-2017-0103
MD Martinko et al., 2013). Second, studies show that the impact of negative work events on work
outcomes is not linear (Rigotti, 2009). When faced with the same stimulus (e.g. an abusive
supervisor), subordinates may vary in terms of the intensity of their reactions. However,
efforts to examine factors which may exacerbate or attenuate the negative impact of in
abusive supervisor-work outcome relationship has been sparse (Harris et al., 2007; Kernan
et al., 2016; Lian et al., 2012; Martinko et al., 2013; Priesemuth and Schminke, 2017). The current
study addresses these literature gaps by examining factors that combine to shape
subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision.
Employee stress and turnover intentions not only result in soaring organizational cost
but also have deleterious effects on critical work outcomes (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Le Fevre
et al., 2006). The direct impact of abusive supervision on enhancing employee stress and
turnover intentions are well established (Harris et al., 2008; Tepper, 2007; Aryee et al., 2007;
Chi and Liang, 2013; Whitman et al., 2014), however factors which can help to explain the
conditions under which abusive supervision is more or less likely to be associated with
stress and turnover intentions and illuminate the processes underlying the relationship are
missing. In the current times of high competitiveness, such information is crucial for
addressing abusive supervision and preventing its debilitating effects (Pines and Zaidman,
2014; Smith et al., 2012) and leveraging it to aid leadership (Day et al., 2009; Lord and Hall,
2005; Le Fevre et al., 2006).
Scholars have emphasized the role of personal resources in enabling employees to become
flexible and adapt to resource-draining circumstances (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Paul et al.,
2016). Recent research suggests that individual resources affect employees perceptions of
abuse as well as their reactions (Martinko et al., 2013). Tepper’s (2007) emergent model of
abusive supervision also postulates the role of subordinates’ psychological resources in
addressing the workplace challenges. Psychological capital (PsyCap) which refers to an
individual’s positive psychological state of development, characterized by self-efficacy,
resilience, hope and optimism, has gained attention as a hidden personality resource that
mediates the outcome of potentially stressful events at workplace (abusive supervisions)
(Christian et al., 2011; Crawford et al., 2010; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). However, despite an
intuitive appeal, empirical studies testing the relationship between abusive supervision and
personal resources are spare (Karatepe and Talebzadeh, 2016; Wu and Lee, 2016).
The present study examines the relationship between abusive supervision and outcomes
through PsyCap as its underlying mechanism. In response to literature calls (Oh and Farh, 2017;
Tepper et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2015) to examine the moderating role of relational factors on abusive
supervision-outcome relationship, this study also tests the how bad-leadership behavior and high
quality of the leader–subordinate relationship (captured through leader-member exchange
(LMX)) interact to effect PsyCap and work outcomes. While abusive supervision represents
specific harmful supervisory behavior that occurs at any time during daily interactions
(Tepper and Henle, 2011), leader–member exchange (LMX) refers to the overall quality of a
supervisor–subordinate relationship that develops over time (Dulebohn et al., 2012). The
prepositions made in this paper are embedded in the conservation of resources (COR) theory
(Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), which presents a comprehensive process of how stress
occurs and how individuals respond to stress. The central tenet of this theory is that “individuals
strive to retain, protect, and build resources” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 516) such as social support,
personal characteristics, time and energy. The theory posits that human beings fundamentally
seek to create a situation with resource surplus and avoid situations that might cause their loss of
valued resources since the latter would cause psychological discomfort or stress (Hobfoll, 2001).
Drawing from COR theory which situates resources as central to the stress process (Hobfoll,
1989, 2001), the paper posits that abusive supervision contributes to resource erosion and efforts
to combat it drain employee personal resources which has adverse effects on work outcomes. It is
proposed that the quality of relationship with the supervisor can moderate employee reactions.
The incremental contributions of our study are threefold. Whereas empirical findings Abusive
suggest that contextual and personal resources are correlated with abusive supervision, supervision,
there is virtually no research regarding the role of personal resources in the process via PsyCap, LMX
which abusive supervision has its negative effects. Given that major theories and bodies of
empirical research highlight job and personal resources as crucial for withstanding and outcomes
environmental stressors, this overlooked issue could be fundamentally important for
developing a general understanding of how abusive supervision impacts on employees and

organizations. Even though many scholars have argued for the importance of considering
moderators in the abusive supervision to outcomes relationships, empirical research
devoted to moderators has been scarce. Efforts to uncover the interactive effects of
contextual factors and personal resources with abusive supervision are missing.
Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining how abusive
supervision affects turnover intentions and perceived stress through PsyCap. The present
study makes important contributions to the extant leadership literature by simultaneously
taking abusive supervisory behavior and LMX into account and examining their interactive
impact on subordinates from a resource conservation perspective. Since most leadership
research has exclusively focused on either leadership behavior (i.e. leader-based domain) or
supervisor–subordinate dyadic relationship (i.e. relationship-based domain) (Graen and
Uhl-Bien, 1995; Lian et al., 2012), this is a significant contribution of the present study.
The study also contributes in terms of its novel context, India. It is conceivable that
abusive supervision occurs more frequently in countries with high power distance
(e.g. India) where it is more acceptable to have unequal power distributions within social
institutions (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2001). Underlying values of the social system promotes
conformity to authority figures (Amba-Rao et al., 2000). There is acceptance accompanied by
both acquiescence and deference to those in superior positions to deviate from norms of
unfair treatment and procedures and policies, without provoking negative reactions from
people of lower social status (Agarwal, 2016). Questioning supervisors is not very common
and constrained by the targets’ dependency on their supervisors (Farh et al., 2007; Rai and
Agarwal, 2017; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2001; Sinha and Sinha, 1990). By testing the direct
and indirect effects of abusive supervision in India, this study is a step toward extending
western-centric literature to in the Asian context (Figure 1).
Abusive supervision
Introduced by Tepper (2000) as a dark-side leadership behavior, abusive supervision
captures supervisor’s hostile behaviors including angry tantrums, public criticisms and
inappropriately assigned blame. Different conceptualizations of interpersonal mistreatment
ideas have emerged almost at the same time in the literature. Examples of such
conceptualizations include destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007), toxic leadership
(Lipman-Blumen, 2004) and petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994). Scholars (Martinko et al., 2013;
X
LM
PsyCap
Turnover Intention
Abusive Supervision Perceived Stress Figure 1.

Hypothesized model
MD Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Tepper and Henle, 2011) have discussed the different types of
destructive leadership behaviors and the highlighted the key aspects in which the
definitions of these concepts differ (see Table I). Abusive supervision is conceptualized as
sustained pattern of abuse on a regular basis over an extended period of time. It is a
subjective assessment and perception subordinates make on the basis of their observations
of their supervisors’ behavior. Unlike other constructs in the same domain, abusive
supervision involves continuing exposure to hierarchical mistreatment and refers to

sustained displays of nonphysical hostility. Isolated instances of these behaviors do not
constitute abusive supervision (Neuman and Baron, 1997). It is directed downward, excludes
physical hostility and does not include reference to intended outcomes. While some
definitions of destructive leadership explicitly refer to outcomes (e.g. Einarsen et al., 2002),
abusive supervision is not defined in terms of the perpetrator’s intended outcomes (e.g. to
cause harm). Supervisors perpetrate abusive behavior for a purpose (Tepper, 2000)
as supervisors may mistreat their subordinates to accomplish objectives other than
causing injury by impeding cooperative work (Tepper, 2000). Thus, while abusive
supervision may occupy the same conceptual space as other destructive behaviors,
nevertheless it is not the same.
Increasing interest in abusive supervision in the recent years can be understood in light
of its prevalence, deleterious effects and associated costs. Empirical studies have
ascertained a high prevalence of abusive supervision across cultures. For example, in the
Netherlands (Hubert and Van Veldhoven, 2001) prevalence rate of about 11 percent is
reported. Even higher prevalence rates have been found in a Norwegian study (Aasland
et al., 2010) where about a third of employees have been subject to some type of such
behavior “often” within six months prior to the questioning. In the USA, abusive
supervision affects an estimated 13.6 percent of US workers (Tepper, 2007) at a cost of
$23.8bn annually (e.g. due to employee absenteeism, employee turnover and lowered
effectiveness Tepper et al., 2006).
Articles that Physical, verbal Inclusion

Type of destructive introduced the (Perceived) Duration/ and non-verbal of
leadership concept Perception Intent Frequency behavior Target outcomes
Petty tyranny Ashforth (1997) N N V/NV F N

Abusive supervision Tepper (2000) Y N Y V/NV F N
Coercive power Elangovan and N Y
Xie (2000)
Abusive supervisory Yagil (2005) Y Y V/NV F N
behaviors
Social undermining Duffy et al. (2002) N Y Y V/NV F/C Y
Supervisory abuse Bamberger and Y N Y V/NV F N
Bacharach
Supervisor verbal Grandey et al. Y V F N
abuse (2007)
Unsupportive Rooney Y V/NV F N
managerial behaviors et al. (2009)
Aversive leadership Bligh et al. (2007) Y V/NV F N
Destructive leadership Einarsen et al. N N Y V/NV/P F/O Y
(2002)
Tyrannical leadership Hauge et al. N N Y V/NV/P F/O Y
(2007)
Despotic leadership De Hoogh and N Y V/NV/P F/O N
Table I. Den Hartog (2008)
Types of destructive Notes: N, No; Y, yes; V, verbal; NV, nonverbal; P, physical; F, follower; O, organization; C, colleagues
leadership behaviors Source: Schyns and Schlling (2013)
Studies have tested the deleterious effects of abusive supervision on individual and often the Abusive
organizations. Abusive supervision has been found to be significantly correlated with supervision,
employee strain (Huo et al., 2012), psychological distress (Burton and Hoobler, 2006; Duffy PsyCap, LMX
et al., 2002; Harvey et al., 2007; Wu and Lee, 2016; Yagil, 2006), work–family conflict (Tepper,
2000), job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Aryee et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2004), and outcomes
lower task, contextual performance (Harris et al., 2008; Shoss et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2012),
employee creativity (Liu et al., 2012, 2016) and increased counterproductive work behaviors
(Detert et al., 2007; Dupré et al., 2006). Increasing interest in abusive supervision can also be
understood from a values and ethics perspective. Research suggests that supervisory
behaviors at upper levels often trickle down through behavior modeling – employees
abused by their managers often became more abusive to their own subordinates (Liu et al.,
2012; Mawritz et al., 2012).
This study examines the devastating effects of abusive supervision on outcomes using
the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). COR is one of the most influential theories explaining
human stress and well-being and offers a useful theoretical foundation for understanding
the impact of abusive supervision. The central proposition of COR theory is that people
strive to obtain, retain and protect resources. Resources are defined as objects, personal
characteristics (e.g. PsyCap), conditions (e.g. supervisory support) or energies (e.g. time,
physical/mental energy). Resources are valued because they not only have the instrumental
value of offering people means to fulfill important and meaningful goals, but also carry the
symbolic value of identifying individuals as who they are. Thus human beings
fundamentally seek to create a situation with resource surpluses and avoid situations that
might cause their loss of valued resources since the latter would cause psychological
discomfort or stress (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001).
Two basic processes describe how resources can be lost or gained. The first process, the
“resource gain” process describes that initial resources can help generate more resources
that accumulate over time, ultimately creating a “gain spiral” (Hakanen et al., 2011; Hobfoll,
1989, 2002; Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012). In contrast, process of “resource loss”
describes that stress occurs when there is loss of resources or a threat of loss of resources.
People seek to invest their resources to tackle stressful conditions and avoid negative
situations, to prevent themselves from potential resource loss and to gather additional
resources. COR theory further suggests that initial resource loss makes employees
vulnerable to further resource loss especially when negative emotional sequel occurs and
when there is less availability of potential supportive resources (Wheeler et al., 2010; Wright
and Hobfoll, 2004). When no action is taken, this ultimately results in a “loss spiral” in which
more and more resources are lost. The theory suggests that resource losses are the driver of
reactions and in the phase of resources loss, the prime human motivation is directed toward
the protection and COR (Hobfoll, 2001; Halbesleben and Bowler, 2007).
Abusive supervision has been identified as a serious occupational stressor (Hoel et al.,
1999), resulting in resource loss (Wheeler et al., 2010). Facing an abusive supervisor
may be quite stressful because it is indicative of a continuous loss in intrinsic resources
(e.g. psychological resources like status, dignity, safety and energy at work) (Tuckey and
Neall, 2014). When stress situation becomes chronic (as in the case of abusive supervision
because of its recurrent and persistent nature), the overall resources are depleted (Hobfoll
and Shirom, 2001). Since resource loss is much more salient than resource gain (Hobfoll,
2001), those experiencing resource loss are likely to enter into a defensive position
(Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) and are more focused on conserving their remaining resources
thereby avoiding tasks and situations that would further drain their resources (Hobfoll,
1989, 2001; Kiazad et al., 2014).
The relationship between abusive supervisor, PsyCap and work outcomes using the COR
theory are explained in detail in subsequent sections.
MD Abusive supervision and work outcomes
Employee turnover has emerged as an important consideration for organizations (Cotton
and Tuttle, 1986; Griffin et al., 2004; Holtom et al., 2008). Prior research has shown that the
turnover intent is most important predictor of actual turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000; Holtom
et al., 2008). It is defined as the relative strength of an individual’s intent toward voluntary
permanent withdrawal from an organization (Holtom et al., 2008). Organizations with high
turnover are left with an understaffed, less qualified human resource (HR) that ultimately
hinders their ability to remain competitive (Budhwar and Varma, 2010). Actual turnover has
been estimated to constitute as much as 5 percent of an organization’s operating budget
(Hinkin and Tracey, 2000).
COR theory suggests that when resources become scarce (as in the case of abusive
supervision), individuals try to change their situations and protect the remaining resources
(Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999) by distancing themselves from the source of stress (Tepper
et al., 2007). Drawing from COR theory and in line with the existing literature on abusive
supervision (Harris et al., 2008; Tepper, 2007), we posit that in an aversive work environment,
employees look for means to withdraw from the organization to conserve the resources which
might otherwise be lost (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; Brayfield and Crockett, 1955; Tepper
et al., 2009). Experience of abusive supervisors will trigger the withdrawal process and
employees will attempt to gain control of the situation and conserve remaining resources by
engaging in intention to seek alternative employment opportunities. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1a. Abusive supervision correlates positively with intention to quit (ITQ).
The classic definition of stress offered by Lazarus (1966) is that it occurs when an individual
perceives that the demands of an external situation are beyond his or her perceived ability to
cope with them (Cohen et al., 1983; Lazarus, 1966). World Health Organization has declared
workplace stress to be a worldwide epidemic plaguing corporations and nations (Avey et al.,
2011). Approximately 20 percent of payroll of organizations goes toward dealing with
stress-related problems (Riga, 2006). The health-care expenditures for workers who report
high levels of stress has been found to be nearly 50 percent greater than others (Goetzel
et al., 1998). Infact a large percentage of working population in India has been found to suffer
from some or the other form of stress (Agarwal and Gupta, 2018) simultaneously impacting
at the return on investment and return on value of investment.
Abusive supervision has been linked with several manifestations of psychological
distress including anxiety (Harris and Kacmar, 2005; Tepper, 2007), depression (Tepper,
2000), burnout (Tepper, 2000), somatic health complaints (Tepper, 2000) and job strain
(Harvey et al., 2007). On the basis of the existing related literature (Aryee et al., 2007; Chi and
Liang, 2013; Whitman et al., 2014), we propose positive association between abusive
supervision and perceived stress. Thus:
H1b. Abusive supervision is positively rrelated to perceived stress.
Abusive supervision and PsyCap

PsyCap refers to “an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is
characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary
effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about
succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary,
redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and
adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success”
(Luthans et al., 2007, p. 3). Traditionally, the four resources, hope, optimism, efficacy and
resiliency, have been examined as theoretically independent of each other and assessed
through distinct measures.
Abusive supervision encompasses behaviors which are likely to be negatively impact an Abusive
individual’s basic psychological states. Employees working under abusive supervisors are supervision,
often reminded about their past mistakes and publicly criticized. Persistent exposure to such PsyCap, LMX
negative behavior makes employees less optimistic about accomplishing their goals
(Karatepe and Talebzadeh, 2016). When employees’ energy reserves are drained in the face of and outcomes
mistreatment at work, they may feel worse about their situation and their capacity to handle
difficult events. Embedded in an environment of negativity, employees often begin to appraise

things around them from a negative perspective and lose hope (Avey et al., 2011). Overtime,
such negative experiences may undermine their self-efficacy and shift employees perceived
locus of control from internal to external sources (Deci and Cascio, 1972; Luthans et al., 2007).
Lack of social support from leaders also decreases subordinates resiliency (Coutu, 2002), their
confidence to cope and bounce back from failures and adversity (Luthans et al., 2007).
Despite the intuitive appeal of the relationship between abusive supervision with
PsyCap, efforts to examine the association between abusive supervision and PsyCap have
been far and few of the handful of studies which have examined abusive supervision and
PsyCap relationship are limited to testing its independent dimensions-hope, efficacy,
optimism and resilience (Duffy et al., 2002; Harvey et al., 2007; Liao and Liu, 2015; Wu and
Lee, 2016). Empirical evidence suggests that the combination of four core dimensions of
PsyCap provides a better understanding of the role of personal resources as well as offers
practical guidelines for managing them (Avey et al., 2009; Karatepe and Talebzadeh, 2016).
In line with empirical evidence which has established the additive predictive validity of the
PsyCap construct above and beyond the underlying four positive resources of self-efficacy,
hope, optimism and resiliency in predicting positive work-related and individual outcomes
(Luthans et al., 2007), this study gauges the effects of abusive supervision simultaneously
with all the four dimensions of PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2007; Mäkikangas et al., 2013).
Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1c. Abusive supervision is negatively related to PsyCap.
Mediating role of PsyCap

Research is just beginning to scratch the surface on the mediators of abusive supervision.
Some of the identified conceptual mechanisms can be operationalized into measurable
mediators that can be tested for a better understanding of how abusive supervision operates
to lead to its desired outcomes. PsyCap has emerged as an important mediating variable in
the leadership literature (Epitropaki, 2013; Karatepe and Talebzadeh, 2016; Liao and Liu,
2015; Liu et al., 2012; Luthans et al., 2008; Rego et al., 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2011; Wang
et al., 2012). To the best of authors’ knowledge, only one study by Wu and Lee (2016)
examined PsyCap as a mediator in the relationship between abusive supervision and
knowledge sharing. In this study, we examine the mediating role of PsyCap in the abusive
supervision-turnover intention and stress outcome relationship. Efforts to examine the
mediating mechanism in the abusive leadership–work outcomes relationship are scant.
Abusive supervision makes highly salient potential threats to the self-concept (Lee and
Brotheridge, 2006) by sending a message of disrespect and devaluation (Elfering et al., 2005).
Ridiculing, undermining and yelling at subordinates threatens and taxes subordinates’
personal resources (Harvey et al., 2007). Subordinates experiencing high job demands, such
as abusive supervision, overtime, may experience a feeling of being overextended and
depleted of one’s emotional resources (Maslach and Leiter, 2008). Drawing from COR theory,
we posit that abusive supervision results in cumulative loss of PsyCap, which in turn causes
high stress and motivates employees to withdraw from such situations in order to prevent
any further resource loss (Liu et al., 2012; Restubog et al., 2010; Tuckey and Neall, 2014;
Whitman et al., 2014).
MD The mediating role of Psycap is also plausible due to the established relationship with
proposed outcomes – abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2008; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994) and
turnover intentions and stress (Avey, 2014; Avey et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Epitropaki, 2013;
Newman et al., 2014). Thus taken together, in this study, PsyCap is examined as the process
through which abusive supervision engenders work outcomes:
H2. PsyCap will partially mediate the direct relationship between Abusive supervision
and (a) turnover intentions and (b) perceived stress.
Moderating effects of LMX

Abusive supervision research is in need of a fuller understanding of moderators, which
represent optimal conditions within which it thrives, and boundary conditions that present
discontinuities or inflection points. To date, the focus has largely been on the role of
psychological climate, meaning of work, ingratiation, structure and personality traits on
abusive supervision-outcome relationship (Harris et al., 2007, 2008; Harvey et al., 2007;
McAllister et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2017), although there are likely to be a number of other
important moderators, particularly ones that are more relational in nature. In this study, we
focus on the moderating role of leader–follower relationship quality (LMX) on subordinates’
work outcomes.
LMX theory proposes that a superior–subordinate relationship develops over time based
on differential degrees of relational qualities (Graen and Cashman, 1975). LMX describes the
relationship between supervisors and subordinates on a continuum of low- to high-quality
exchanges. A high-quality relationship is characterized by growing levels of respect, trust
and obligation, and supervisors reward these commodities with support, clear expectations
and a relaxation of formal supervision. Low-quality relationships, on the other hand, are
characterized by a lack of briefing, poor information exchange and close supervision due to
low levels of trust (Graen and Cashman, 1975). There is evidence in the literature to show
that social support from supervisors can help to buffer individuals against the harmful
effects of work-related stress(Cohen and Wills, 1985; George et al., 1993; House, 1981).
Distinguishable constructs, LMX and abusive supervision can coexist similar to how
negative interpersonal behaviors such as yelling and ostracism can occur even in otherwise
supportive relationships (e.g. spouse, sibling, parents) (Berscheid and Regan, 2005). For
instance, high-LMX subordinates may recall occasions of being ridiculed or publicly
criticized (Lian et al., 2012). Similarly, subordinates having low-quality LMX may not
necessarily experience supervisors engaging in verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Tepper,
2007). Thus abusive supervision and LMX are different perspectives which employees take
into consideration while assessing a supervisor’s leadership practice (Burris et al., 2008).
Empirical work concerning the moderating effects of LMX in the association between
abusive supervision and work outcomes is scanty. To broaden our understanding of how
bad leadership behavior and the leader–follower relationship quality may interactively
influence subordinates’ outcomes, this study examines the moderating effects of LMX on the
abusive supervision-outcome relationship.
In literature, LMX has been examined as a resource (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll and Shirom,
2001) and has been found to temper the negative effects of abusive supervision on work
outcomes. However recent studies (Lian et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2015) have found that abusive
supervision in high-quality LMX relationship in an abusive relationship can be more
threatening to subordinates’ valued resources, which culminates in heightened reactions.
These findings can be examined from within-domain stress exacerbation hypothesis which
suggests that when employees receive conflicting signals (abuse and support concomitantly)
from the same source (supervisor), they experience cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones and
Mills, 1999). Encountering a supportive supervisor who is also abusive may be unexpected
and surprising, which may build confusion about how the supervisor really feels (they may Abusive
think “my supervisor abuses me” while also thinking “my supervisor offers support to me”). supervision,
Employees in such situations are uncertain about how to utilize supervisors’ support (Major PsyCap, LMX
et al., 1997), making mistreatment more egregious than if it occurred by an abusive-
unsupportive supervisor. Cognitive dissonance drains personal resources since individuals and outcomes
draw from existing resources to make sense of the current situation (Beehr et al., 2003; Hobfoll,
1989), exacerbating the negative effects of source of stress (in this case abusive supervision).
This is in line with recent studies (Hobman et al., 2009; Lian et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2015). For
instance, Hobman et al. (2009) found that subordinates reported the least desirable levels of
anxiety, psychological well-being, satisfaction, and self-esteem when they viewed their
supervisor (i.e. thesis advisor) as both abusive and supportive. The study by Lian et al. (2012)
found that the negative impact of perceived abuse on need satisfaction was stronger when
LMX levels were high. A second reason that may explain the amplifying role of high-quality
LMX in the abusive supervision and negative outcomes is that the low-quality LMX
relationship is mainly based on employment contract (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Unlike
high-LMX subordinates, low-LMX subordinates are treated as “out-group” members who may
not expect emotional and instrumental support from their supervisors (Lian et al., 2012). Such
individuals may thus be less sensitive and vulnerable to the negative signal received and also
less likely to undergo the cognitive dissonance, limiting loss of personal resources (PsyCap),
turnover intentions and stress. As such, high-LMX relationships may result in more
pronounced negative outcomes.
Accordingly, building on COR theory and in line with within-domain stress exacerbation
hypothesis (Beehr et al., 2003; Duffy et al., 2002; Major et al., 1997), we postulate that abusive
supervision in a high-quality LMX relationship can be more threatening to subordinates’
valued resources, which culminates in lowered PsyCap and heightened turnover intentions
and job stress. Thus, we propose that:
H3. LMX moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and (a) PsyCap (b)
turnover intentions (c) perceived stress, such that the relationships will be more
pronounced when LMX is high rather than low.
High quality of supervisor–employee relationships serves as a form of social support in
strengthening employment experiences (Erdogan et al., 2004; O’driscoll et al., 2003).
Employees experiencing a high-quality relationship with their supervisors receive many
work opportunities and also have vicarious learning for self and professional development
(Bandura, 1977, 2000). Drawing from the tenants of COR, we propose that the relational
exchange with supervisors, in terms of opportunities to interact and take decisions (Luthans
et al., 2008), leniency of supervisor in assessing past performance, appreciation for the
present and opportunity for the future which are characteristics of the high-quality
exchange relationship of supervisor and subordinates will assuage the positive effects of
PsyCap on employee outcomes (turnover intentions and stress):
H4. LMX moderates the relationship between PsyCap and (a) turnover intentions (b)
perceived stress, such that the relationships will be more pronounced when LMX is
higher rather than lower.
Thus far, we have explained how abusive supervision leads to subordinates’ stress and
turnover intentions via PsyCap, and propose the exacerbating role of LMX on the abusive
supervision and PsyCap-outcomes relationship. In the light of the above discussion, we further
propose a moderated mediation model of these relationships. Mixed signals and ambivalent
situation puts employees in a tenuous and uncertain position, draining them of personal
resources. In the context of a high-quality LMX relationship, subordinates’ perceptions of
supervisory abuse are more likely impact employee’s stress and turnover intention indirectly
MD through decreased levels of PsyCap. The association between abusive supervision and
proposed work outcomes via PsyCap will be aggravated more in high-quality LMX. Thus, we
anticipate a stronger direct effect (of abusive supervision on employee outcomes through
PsyCap) among employees with high LMX rather than low LMX.
Accordingly, we put forward:
H5a. LMX moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between abusive
supervision and turnover intentions exhaustion via PsyCap, such that the
relationship between abusive supervision and turnover intentions via PsyCap is
stronger under high LMX than under low LMX.
H5b. LMX moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between abusive
supervision and stress via PsyCap, such that the relationship between abusive
supervision and perceived stress via PsyCap is stronger under high LMX than
under low LMX.
Research methodology
Data were collected from full-time managerial employees working in wide variety of sectors
including retail, trade, petro-chemical industries, manufacturing, financial institutions,
service and hospitality, information technology, telecommunications and consulting. Senior
HR managers within the 30 organizations were identified via LinkedIn and approached via
e-mail, telephone and face-to-face meetings. Out of 30, seven organizations gave permission
to conduct the survey: one petro-chemical company; two auto ancillaries manufacturing
company; two telecommunications company; one retail and fashion company, and one
information technology company. The study objectives, scope and data collection
procedures were explained to the senior HR managers of these seven organizations who
assisted in the data collection. In line with requests from the researchers – to enhance the
generalizability of the findings and ensure a balanced representation of the employees from
different organizational departments and job positions – the HR teams selected a stratified
random sample of 2,000 manager within their respective organizations and invited them to
volunteer for the study.
On the cover page of the questionnaire, we explained the voluntary nature of this survey
and assured anonymity and confidentiality to the participants. We also provided the contact
information of the author in case respondents have any questions or inquiries.
Data were collected in two stages – Time 1 and Time 2. In Time 1, respondents were
asked to provide the demographic information and their perceptions of abusive supervision
and LMX, using their current immediate supervisors as referees. After two weeks (Time-2),
the second- stage survey was conducted, requesting information for remaining variables-
PsyCap, turnover intentions and perceived stress.
In time 1, we distributed questionnaires to 2,000 full-time employees and received 1,600
completed questionnaires, representing the response rate of 80.0 percent. Respondents
provided their ratings. Every questionnaire was marked with a unique code which was
recorded in a master file such that the responses received from the two phases can be
matched. Finally, in second-stage, we received 1,193 completed and usable questionnaires,
representing an overall response rate of 74.5 percent. Within the sample, 76.3 percent were
male and 23.7 percent aged from 28 to 65. In total, 68 percent worked for their companies for
more than three years and 27.2 percent had a university degree or above.
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures used a response scale ranging from 1, which was
“strongly disagree,” to 5, which was “strongly agree.”
Abusive supervision. We measured abusive supervision using the 15-item scale developed Abusive
by Tepper (2000). Subordinates were asked to rate how frequently their supervisor engaged supervision,
in the 15 behaviors during the past one month.
LMX. The quality of LMX was measured using Scandura and Graen’s (1984) seven-item
PsyCap, LMX
scale on a seven-point Likert scale. Out of the seven items present in the original scale, one and outcomes
item showed very poor loading on the latent “LMX” construct. We subsequently pruned the
scale for the weakly loading items and tested the psychometric properties of the six-item scale.
Psychological capital (PsyCap). We measured PsyCap using the 12-item scale adopted
from (Luthans et al., 2007). The scale included three items each for the four dimensions of
PsyCap Scale- self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience. The 12 items were averaged to
form a single measure of PsyCap and to reflect its nature as the higher-order construct of the
four dimensions. All items were measured on a six-point scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Intention to quit (ITQ). The present study employed a five-item scale developed by
Wayne et al. (1997). Out of the five items present in the original scale, one item showed very
poor loading on the latent “ITQ” construct. We subsequently pruned the scale for the
weakly loading item and tested the psychometric properties of the four-item scale.
Perceived stress. The perceived stress scale developed by Cohen et al. (1983) was used to
measure participants’ appraisal of situations in their life as stressful. The scale consists of
ten items asking participants to rate the frequency of stressful events that occurred in the
past month. Out of the ten items present in the original scale, two items showed very poor
loading on the latent ‘perceived stress’ construct. We subsequently pruned the scale for the
weakly loading items and tested the psychometric properties of the eight-item scale.
Since data were collected from seven organizations, mean differences were expected as
the seven organizations differed in their business processes and challenges. The ANOVA
comparing organizations on the research variables showed that F-values were insigniﬁcant
for nearly all variables except LMX. Post-hoc analyses based on Scheffe’s test were
conducted to test whether pairs of mean differences among variables formed a pattern. The
results did not yield a pattern that could be used as the basis for clustering organizations for
further analyses.
Control variables. We controlled for subordinates’ gender, membership, relationship
tenure with their supervisors, because pervious research indicated that these two
demographic variables not only accounted for the variance in abusive supervision (Aryee
et al., 2007; Hoobler and Brass, 2006; Lian et al., 2012), but also influenced subordinates’
reactions toward abusive supervisors (Haggard et al., 2011; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007).
Subordinates’ gender was coded as 0 for female and 1 for male.
Discriminant and convergent validity

Table II presents the scale reliabilities, means and standard deviations for each scale, and
inter-scale correlations for all study variables. The inter-scale correlations show the expected
direction of association with three exceptions, are all significant at the po0.01 level. In
general, correlation coefficients above 0.70 may increase the likelihood of multicollinearity in a
regression (Tabachnick, n.d.). However, all correlations in our study were below this threshold,
indicating that all measures were appropriate for inclusion in the analyses. Furthermore, all
variance inflation factors in the regressions were below 2. The coefficient α’s for all measures
were higher than 0.70, confirming that all measures were adequately reliable. Their
standardized estimates extend from 0.70 to 0.82 for abusive supervision; 0.71 to 0.79 for
PsyCap, 0.71 to 0.86 for LMX, 0.70 to 0.79 for ITQ and; 0.74 to 0.80 for stress (see Table III).
The high construct reliabilities and significant loadings confirmed that the model has
convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Also, the average
MD
Table II.
correlations
and inter-construct
Descriptive statistics
α CR M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age – – 30.46 7 –
2. Gender – – 0.30 0.46 −0.20** –
3. Education – – 2.12 1.16 −0.09** −0.01 –
4. Job tenure – – 4.39 5.73 0.72** −0.09** −0.17** –
5. Job level – – 1.56 0.49 0.32** −0.11** 0.08** 0.20** –
6. Abusive supervision 0.90 0.92 4.14 0.57 0.05 0.09 0.02 −0.03 0.02 (0.71)
7. PsyCap 0.88 0.86 5.15 0.87 0.12** 0.02 −0.13** 0.11** 0.13** −0.11** (0.72)
8. LMX 0.92 0.83 5.45 1.09 0.21** 0.06 −0.04 0.17** 0.12** −0.42** 0.26** (0.71)
9. Perceived stress 0.80 0.89 5.20 1.0 0.23 0.14 0.13 −0.32 0.23 0.23** −0.19* −0.32* (0.72)
10. Turnover intention 0.71 0.86 3.34 1.49 −0.15** 0.01 −0.02 −0.10** −0.09** 0.41* −0.10** −0.24** −0.40** (0.82)
Notes: n ¼ 1,193. α, Cronbach’s α reliability; CR, composite reliability of the construct measures; average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct (Nos 7–10) is
provided in parentheses along the diagonal; values below the diagonal are inter-construct correlations; values above the diagonal (i.e. AVE) are square of correlations
(Nos 6-10). *p o0.05; **po 0.01; ***po 0.001 (two-tailed)
Construct Indicators AVE MSV ASV Cronbach’s α/CR Factor loading t-value
Abusive
supervision,
Abusive supervision AB1 0.711 0.501 0.321 0.907/0.92 0.823 12.283*** PsyCap, LMX
AB2 0.812 11.000***
AB3 0.765 12.183*** and outcomes
AB4 0.801 12.065***
AB5 0.823 11.200***

AB6 0.734 11.283***
AB7 0.748 11.556***
AB8 0.729 11.111***
AB9 0.748 11.083***
AB10 0.765 12.123***
AB11 0.754 12.065***
AB12 0.756 13.984***
AB13 0.700 11.283***
AB14 0.756 12.465***
AB15 0.765 11.283***
PsyCap PsyCap1 0.720 0.511 0.426 0.880/0.88 0.745 11.601***
PsyCap2 0.754 11.211***
PsyCap3 0.760 11.200***
PsyCap4 0.712 12.283***
PsyCap5 0.724 11.283***
PsyCap6 0.723 12.673***
PsyCap7 0.734 11.283***
PsyCap8 0.755 13.674***
PsyCap9 0.799 11.283***
PsyCap10 0.755 11.000***
PsyCap11 0.756 11.432***
PsyCap12 0.723 11.333***
LMX LMX1 0.712 0.457 0.319 0.921/0.920 0.710 11.654***
LMX2 0.823 11.000***
LMX3 0.845 11.283***
LMX4 0.805 12.356***
LMX5 0.861 11.076***
LMX6 0.867 11.283***
ITQ ITQ1 0.821 0.603 0.341 0.712/0.801 0.799 12.583***
ITQ2 0.702 11.901***
ITQ3 0.756 11.503***
ITQ4 0.768 11.284***
Perceived stress Stress1 0.721 0.456 0.345 0.803/0.710 0.767 11.763***
Stress2 0.758 11.243***
Stress3 0.745 13.163***
Stress4 0.744 11.237***
Stress5 0.756 11.007***
Stress6 0.766 11.111***
Table III.
Stress7 0.801 11.063***
Overall reliability of
Stress8 0.809 11.583*** constructs and factor
Notes: n ¼ 1,193. *p o0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 (two-tailed) loadings of indicators
variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than 0.5 and all construct reliabilities exceeded
their respective AVE values. Therefore, these results give confidence about the existence of
convergent validity (Hair et al., 2005). Discriminant validity was tested to measure the extent
of differences among constructs. Discriminant validity exists if the AVE value of every
construct is larger than the square of its correlation coefficient with other constructs (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). As all AVEs were greater than the corresponding row or column entries, it
can be said that discriminant validity was present in the selected model. It may also be
MD examined by comparing the values of maximum shared variance (MSV ) and average shared
variance (ASV) with AVE values. It exists when all MSV and ASV values are lower than their
respective AVE values (Table III).
Common method variance (CMV )

Since the data for this study were obtained from a single survey, CMV was possible. To
control for the influence of CMV in our study, we followed established remedial and
statistical steps. Based on literature recommendations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff
and Lee, 2003) we used established scales only, explained the procedures to our participants
and guaranteed anonymity. Furthermore, we used filler items and different instructions to
create a psychological separation between the sets of variables. We also conducted a series
of confirmatory factor analyses and calculated various fit indices to determine how the
model fitted our data (Hair, 2005). Conventionally, the χ2/df values less than 2.5 indicate a
good fit. Comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NFI), goodness of fit index (GFI)
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were additionally considered to
assess the model fit. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that for CFI, NFI and GFI, values of
0.90 and above indicate good fit. SRMR values below 0.08 suggest an acceptable model fit.
For RMSEA, values less than 0.05 generally indicate good fit, while values between 0.05 and
0.08 suggest acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). The proposed five-factor (Abusive supervision,
PsyCap, LMX, turnover intentions and stress) hypothesized model yielded an acceptable fit
to the data ( χ2 ¼ 642, df ¼ 252, χ 2/df ¼ 2.5, CFI ¼ 0.93, GFI ¼ 0.96, NFI ¼ 0.95,
RMSEA ¼ 0.04). The fit of alternative models presented in Table IV were inferior to that
of the hypothesized five-factor. Further, Harman’s single-factor test was utilized to
investigate potential CMV among the study variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and
Podsakoff, 2003). The basic assumption of Harman’s single-factor test is that if a substantial
amount of CMV is present, one general factor will account for the majority ( W50 percent) of
the covariance among the variables. The results of this test showed that multiple factors
were extracted and the first factor accounted for only 34.8 percent of the total variance,
suggesting CMV could be partially mitigated.
Finally, CMV was assessed using a marker variable test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001;
Malhotra et al., 2006). According Lindell and Whitney (2001), the smallest observed correlation
between the marker variable and any other substantive variable that is theoretically irrelevant
is assumed to be due to CMV. In this study, we used the demographic variable of gender as the
marker variable, which has a non-significant correlation with abusive supervision, PsyCap,
LMX, turnover intentions and stress. We chose the smallest positive correlation coefficient
involving gender with acquiescent silence (rM ¼ 0.02, ns) for use in the partial correlation
Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI GFI NFI RMSEA
1 Factor modela 888 258 3.4 0.36 0.42 0.20 0.08

2 Factor modelb 850 257 3.3 0.62 0.90 0.92 0.07
c
3 Factor model 809 256 3.1 0.65 0.91 0.91 0.06
4 Factor modeld 789 255 3.0 0.65 0.95 0.91 0.06
5 Factor modele (hypothesized model) 642 252 2.5 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.04
Notes: aIn 1-factor model, all items were loaded on a single factor; bin the 2-factor model, abusive supervision,
LMX and PsyCap items were loaded on one and turnover intention and perceived stress were loaded on one
factor; cin the 3-factor model, perceived stress and PsyCap items and turnover intention were loaded on one
Table IV. factor and abusive supervision, LMX for independent factors; din the 4-factor model, turnover intention and
Results of model perceived stress items were loaded on one factor, and remaining constructs formed independent factors; ein
comparison the 5-factor model, all the constructs are treated as five independent factors
adjustment procedure to examine the degree of the CMV. The mean change in correlations of Abusive
the five key study variables (rU − rA) when partialling out the effect of rM was 0.02, supervision,
suggesting that no significant CMV was shared by these variables. Though we were unable to PsyCap, LMX
rule out fully the contamination problem caused by CMV, the above cautious measures helped
to strengthen confidence in our findings. and outcomes
Analytical strategy
We tested our study’s hypotheses in three stages. First, we examined the direct effects of
abusive supervision on outcomes (turnover intention and stress and PsyCap; H1(a)–H1(c).
Second, we analyzed simple mediation (H2). Third, we integrated the proposed moderator
variable into the model (H3(a)–H3(c) and H4(a) and H4(b) and empirically tested the overall
moderated mediation H5(a)–H5(b). Prior to the analyses, all continuous measures were
mean-centered (Aiken et al., 1991).
Test of mediation
Tests of mediation hypotheses are often guided by the multistep approach proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986); however, off late, methodologists have identified potential
shortcomings in this approach (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).
For instance, the significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable is
not considered a necessary criterion to establish the mediation – the mediational analysis is
based on formal significance tests of the indirect effects ab (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The
tests of the hypotheses in the present study involved path analysis employing an Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) macro named PROCESS (Hayes, 2013), which is an
advanced regression-based approach focusing on mediation, moderated mediation models,
and the conditional indirect effect. PROCESS SPSS incorporates the stepwise procedure
described by Baron and Kenny (1986) and facilitates the estimation of the indirect effect ab,
both with a normal theory approach (i.e. the Sobel test) and with a bootstrap approach to
obtain confidence intervals (CIs).
Test of moderation and conditional indirect effect

We used the procedure proposed by Aiken and West (hierarchical regression analysis) to
test the moderating effects of LMX on the abusive supervision-outcome. We further used
PROCESS program (Hayes, 2013) to estimate the proposed conditional indirect effects.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table II presents the descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between the study
variables. The zero-order correlations were all in the expected direction, indicating
preliminary support for the hypothesized relationships.
Direct and mediated effects

The SPSS macro, PROCESS (Hayes, 2013; Preacher and Hayes, 2008), was used for path
analysis. Abusive supervision was significantly related to turnover intention ( β ¼ 0.13,
t ¼ 10.14, p ¼ o0.001), perceived stress ( β ¼ 0.55, t ¼ 2.7, p ¼ o0.001) and PsyCap
( β ¼ −0.31, t ¼ 9.3, p ¼ o0.001), supporting H1(a)–H1(c), respectively (Table V ). PsyCap
was significantly related to turnover intentions ( β ¼ −0.12, t ¼ 8.6, po0.001) and perceived
stress ( β ¼ −0.25, t ¼ 4.3, po0.001) when controlling for abusive supervision. The significant
indirect effects supported the mediating role of PsyCap in abusive supervision–outcome
relationships (H2). Additionally, after controlling for the mediator (PsyCap), the association
between abusive supervision-turnover intention ( β ¼ 0.10, t ¼ 4.8, po0.01) and abusive
MD Variable B SE t p
Direct and total effects
Step 1 Turnover intentions regressed on abusive supervision 0.13 0.042 10.14 0.000
Perceived stress regressed on abusive supervision 0.55 0.047 2.7 0.000
Step 2 PsyCap regressed on abusive supervision −0.31 0.037 18.17 0.000
Step 3 Turnover intentions regressed on PsyCap after controlling −0.12 0.037 8.67 0.000
for abusive supervision
Perceived stress regressed on PsyCap after controlling for −0.25 0.044 4.33 0.000
abusive supervision
Step 4 Turnover intentions regressed on abusive supervision after 0.10 0.048 4.33 0.001
controlling for PsyCap
Perceived stress regressed on abusive supervision after 0.20 0.055 0.069 0.001
controlling for PsyCap
Indirect effect and significance using Sobel test Value SE z P
Table V. Indirect effects of abusive supervision on turnover intentions 0.22 0.028 8.80 0.000
Mediating role of Indirect effects of abusive supervision on perceived stress 0.13 0.030 6.10 0.000
PsyCap in abusive
supervision and Bootstrap results for indirect effect Value SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
outcomes Indirect effects of abusive supervision on turnover intention 0.20 0.028 0.14 0.18
relationships Indirect effects of abusive supervision on perceived stress 0.13 0.029 0.23 0.32
supervision-perceived stress ( β ¼ 0.20, t ¼ 2.0, po0.01) remained significant with a drop-in

beta values and significance values. This analysis suggests partial mediating effects of
PsyCap in the abusive supervision–outcome relationship, supporting H2.
To test the significance of the indirect effect, we used the Sobel (1982) and a bias-
corrected bootstrapped test with 5,000 replications to ensure 95% CI (PROCESS macro). The
Sobel (1982) test (two-tailed), which assumes a normal distribution demonstrated that the
indirect effects were significant as the p-value of less than 0.05 confirmed that PsyCap
played a mediating role in abusive supervision-turnover intention (z ¼ 8.0, p o0.001) and
the abusive supervision-perceived stress (z ¼ 6.10, p o0.001) relationship. Second, we used
bootstrapping to evaluate the statistical significance of the indirect effect of abusive
supervision (X)) on stress and turnover intentions (Y ) through PsyCap (M). Researchers
consider bootstrapping to be better than the traditional Sobel’s test as it makes no
assumption of whether the indirect effect follows normal distribution (Preacher and Hayes,
2008). In bootstrapping, the significance of indirect effect is evaluated by whether CIs
obtained from repeated samplings contain zero (Edwards and Lambert, 2007; Preacher and
Hayes, 2008). Following the practice of the extant literature (e.g. Edwards and Lambert,
2007), we bootstrapped 5,000 samples to obtain bias-corrected CIs. Bootstrapping results
corroborated these findings as bootstrapped CIs around the indirect effects did not contain
zero for abusive supervision-turnover intentions 0.20(0.14, 0.18); and abusive supervision-
perceived stress 0.13(0.23, 0.32) relationship. Together, these results support the mediating
role of PsyCap in abusive supervision-outcome relationships. The results of direct and
mediated effects are reported in Table V.
Moderated mediation
Moderated mediation refers to the indirect or mediated effect itself being contingent or
conditional. Moderated mediation is demonstrated when the conditional indirect effect of
abusive supervision on outcomes via PsyCap differs in strength across low and high levels
of LMX. To assess the first stage moderated mediation, we tested the four conditions
suggested by Ng et al. (2008) (cf. Muller et al., 2005; Preacher et al., 2007): significant effect of
independent variable (IV ) on dependent variable (DV ); significant interaction between IV
and moderator in predicting mediator and significant interaction between mediator and Abusive
moderator in predicting DV; significant effect of mediator on DV; and different conditional supervision,
indirect effect of IV on DV via mediator at high and low levels of moderator. The last PsyCap, LMX
condition is the essence of moderated mediation and establishes whether the strength of the
mediation via mediator differs across the levels of the moderator (Hayes, 2013). Moderated and outcomes
mediation is demonstrated when the conditional indirect effect of abusive supervision
on proposed outcomes, via PsyCap, differs in strength across low and high levels of
conscientiousness.
Our results for H1(a) and H1(b) demonstrated that abusive supervision was significantly
related to turnover intentions and perceived stress supported Condition 1 for moderated
mediation. To test for Condition 2, we first examined whether the interaction of abusive
supervision with LMX was significant in predicting PsyCap (H3(a)). Table VI shows that
the interaction terms for abusive supervision with LMX were significant in predicting
PsyCap ( β ¼ 0.06, p o0.05) suggesting that the relationship between abusive supervision
and PsyCap was stronger for high LMX employees (H3(a)). Moderating the role of LMX was
also found to be significant for abusive supervision-turnover intention ( β ¼ 0.23, p o0.01)
and stress ( β ¼ 0.09, p o0.01) relationship (H3(b) and H3(c)). Next, we examined whether
the interactions for PsyCap with LMX was significant in predicting work outcomes.
Table VI shows that the interaction term between LMX and PsyCap was significant for
intention to quit ( β ¼ −0.11, p o0.001) and stress ( β ¼ −0.07, p o0.05), supporting H4(a)
and H4(b). These results suggest that a relationship between PsyCap and outcomes would
be weaker for employees with higher LMX. Hence, the results of the first two conditions
indicate that LMX can moderate the mediation for the abusive supervision-outcome
relationships (turnover intentions and perceived stress). Taken together, Condition 2 was
satisfied for abusive supervision- PsyCap- outcomes relationship. Condition 3 was also
supported by our results as PsyCap was significantly related to proposed outcomes (H2(a)
and H2(b)). Hence, results based on the first three conditions indicate that LMX could
moderate the mediation for abusive supervisor-PsyCap-outcomes relationship.
Next, we examined Condition 3 that requires the magnitude of the conditional indirect
effect of abusive supervision on outcomes via PsyCap to be different across high and low
levels of LMX. We used (Hayes, 2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS to compute the conditional
Variables and steps PsyCap Turnover intentions Perceived stress
Step 1: Controls
Age 0.11* 0.010* 0.01
Gender −0.02 −0.025 −0.085
Tenure 0.02 −0.017 −0.09
Organizational membership 0.41 0.012 −0.009
Step 2: Main effects of independent variables
Abusive supervision −0.32** 0.34*** 0.45***
PsyCap 0.42*** 0.18***
LMX 0.012* 0.04*
Step 3: Interaction term
Abusive Supervision×LMX 0.06* 0.23** 0.09**
PsyCap×LMX 0.11** 0.07**
R2 0.15 0.26 Table VI.
Moderating role of
R2 change 0.006 0.003
LMX in abusive
F 26.62*** 5.3*** supervision-PsyCap-
Notes: n ¼ 1,193. *p o0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 (two-tailed) outcomes relationship
MD indirect effects. We operationalized high and low levels of LMX as one standard deviation
above and below its mean score. Table VII presents the estimates, standard errors and
bootstrap CIs for the conditional indirect effects of abusive supervision (through PsyCap)
across low and high levels of workplace LMX. Bootstrap results illustrate that the all three
conditional indirect effects (based on the moderator values, i.e. at the mean and at one
standard deviation below and above the mean) are positive, with 95% CI and which do not
contain zero. As shown in Table VII, the conditional indirect effect of abusive supervision on
outcomes via PsyCap is stronger in conditions of high LMX. Thus, H5(a) and H5(b) was
supported (Figures 2–4).
Discussion
The starting point of the present study was that a supervisor’s perceived behavior plays
critical role in influencing subordinates personal resources like PsyCap, perceived stress and
turnover intentions. By employing the assumptions of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the study
hypothesized that abusive supervision engenders negative work outcomes through PsyCap
and the quality of exchange relationship between the employee and supervisor relationship
moderates this relationship.
The significant association between abusive supervision with proposed outcomes
supported the conjecture that abusive supervision has direct effects on turnover intentions
as well as perceived stress (Tepper, 2007; Tepper and Henle, 2011). Consistent with our
Moderator (Value) Conditional indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Outcome variable ¼ Perceived stress; Mediator ¼ PsyCap

Low (Mean − 1SD) 0.470 0.043 0.09 0.24
Mean 0.522 0.033 0.16 0.19
High (Mean + 1SD) 0.601 0.045 0.21 0.47
Outcome variable ¼ Turnover intentions; Mediator ¼ PsyCap
Low (Mean − 1SD) 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.21
Table VII.
Moderated mediation Mean 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.18
results for abusive High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.17 0.09 0.16 0.33
supervision across Notes: Number of bootstrap samples ¼ 5,000. LLCI, lower level of confidence interval; ULCI, upper level of
levels of LMX confidence interval; SE, standard error. Level of confidence ¼ 95%
5
4.5
Psychological Capital
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Figure 2. Low LMX
Moderating effect of 1.5
High LMX
LMX on abusive
supervision and 1
PsyCap relationship Low Abusive High Abusive
Supervision Supervision
5 Abusive
4.5
supervision,
PsyCap, LMX
Turnover Intention 4 and outcomes
3.5
2.5
2
Figure 3.
Low LMX Moderating effect of
1.5
High LMX LMX on abusive
supervision and
1 turnover intention
Low Abusive High Abusive relationship
4.5
3.5
STRESS
2.5
2 Figure 4.
Low LMX Moderating effect of
1.5 LMX on abusive
High LMX
supervision and
1 perceived stress
Low Abusive High Abusive relationship
mediation hypothesis, it was found that employees facing abusive supervision experience
loss of personal resources (PsyCap) resulting in stress and turnover intentions. The
confirmation of the mediation effect of PsyCap on the abusive supervision-outcome
relationship shows that employees negative job experiences first drains their personal
resources which then results in affecting their job attitudes, a sequence of influence that is
the reverse of the commonly assumed personal resources-job experience–attitude–behavior
sequence of relationship (Zhao et al., 2007).
The results also provide us with a deeper understanding of the boundary conditions and
the role of relational organization context on employees’ abusive supervision and PsyCap
and their subsequent reactions. The impact of LMX on personal resources, turnover
intentions and stress is more pronounced for high-LMX employees, in comparison with low-
LMX employees. The supported moderated mediation hypotheses suggest that LMX
moderates the conditional indirect effects of abusive supervision on outcomes via PsyCap.
These findings echoes recent research (Lian et al., 2012; Major et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2015),
which advocates that when job demands (or stressors) and resources come from the same
source, the focal employees experience more stress due to cognitive dissonance, draining
MD personal resources which in turn have an impact on critical work outcomes. The findings
also establish that bad behavior in a generally good relationship will have detrimental effect
and gradually may even become worse. However, small values of the moderating effects of
LMX in the study indicate that there may be other variables which may aggravate the
extent of employee reactions but cannot fully explain the impact of abusive supervision.
Theoretical contributions
A major omission in the extant research on abusive supervision is examination of why and
when abusive supervision may simultaneously influence these outcomes (Gonzalez-Morales
et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016). Proposing and testing key theoretical mechanisms as well as
boundary condition in abusive supervision and outcome relationship provides a
comprehensive picture about the influence of abusive supervision, adds depth to our
understanding of the construct and advances scientific body of knowledge of abusive
supervision. Testing the mediating role of PsyCap is generative because it can potentially
shed new light on the underlying mechanism impacting outcomes of abusive supervision.
By testing the complex interaction between quality of relationship between supervisor with
abusive supervision and PsyCap, the study broadens our understanding of how bad
leadership behavior and the leader–follower relationship quality interactively influences
subordinates’ personal resources as well as proposed outcomes. Combining the findings of
two moderating effects of LMX (direct and indirect), this study contributed to the literature
by showing that organizational context can affect employees’ abusive supervision and
PsyCap and their subsequent attitudes and behaviors in multiple ways (as a simple
moderator and/or as a moderator of mediator).
Examining a positive mechanism (PsyCap) to explain a negative leader behavior
(abusive supervision) has been a significant contribution of this study. Scholars posit that
since positivity and negativity are potentially co-existing phenomena in any given context,
efforts should be made to integrate and test them together and not in a piecemeal manner
(Luthans and Avolio, 2009). Testing abusive supervision-PsyCap relationship addresses
recent calls to test application of positive organizational behavior theory within abusive
supervision research (Tepper and Almeda, 2012).
This study advanced the body of knowledge of PsyCap literature. Empirical studies relating
to new second-order personality variables are sparse (Mäkikangas et al., 2013) and literature is
devoid of evidence appertaining to the joint effects of the components of PsyCap with abusive
supervision as well as proposed outcomes (Newman et al., 2014). This study significantly
advances literature on PsyCap by examining all the four core dimensions simultaneously. The
study findings also contribute to the emerging micro-foundations movement calls for developing
a better understanding of individuals (including their idiosyncratic preferences, mental models
and motivations) and their interactions with context (Foss, 2011) in order to better understand
“people-based advantages” (Coff and Kryscynski, 2011).
COR theory is based on the tenet that individuals are motivated to protect their current
resources and acquire new resources, defined loosely as things that people value. Despite
25 years of research aimed at testing and refining the theory, there is still a lot that is unknown
about how people conceptualize resources and the processes by which people conserve and
acquire resources. Although the destructive effects of abusive supervision are evident from
past research, we demonstrate that COR theory provides a lens through which to generate and
test predictions about potentially universal (or at least widely applicable) resource loss
processes that will be useful for understanding how abusive supervision effects workers and
organizations, and for guiding prevention and intervention in this area. Previous research has
largely considered resources (especially personal and job resources) as antecedents rather
than consequences of mistreatment at work. By positioning resources as central to
understanding the effects of abusive supervision, in addition to being antecedents, this study
thus gives rise to new understandings about how the interpersonal work environment and Abusive
personal resources of workers can be impacted by workplace victimization. The study supervision,
advances the application of COR by concomitantly testing the role of personal resources as PsyCap, LMX
well as relational quality (LMX) in the abusive supervision model. Based on our results we
suggest that interpersonal resources from the work environment, as well as those inherent and outcomes
within the worker, can be detrimentally affected by abusive supervision.
Finally, this study also contributes in terms of its context. Responding to the need of
exploring the transportability of western organizational concepts and practices to other cultural
contexts (Tsui et al., 2007), the findings of this study suggest that like their counterparts in the
west, the impact of bad leadership behaviors on work outcomes are severe. The large sample
size (high statistical power) and occupational heterogeneity of full-time managerial employees
from varied sectors increases the ability to generalize the findings of the present study.
Managerial implications
The findings of this study are important as it advances theory and suggests leverage points
for practitioners to influence and mitigate the negative effects of abusive supervision on these
critical outcomes. First and foremost, organizations should put more emphasis on inhibiting
supervisors’ abusive behavior considering its costly consequences. Our results regarding the
exacerbating effects of abusive supervision in the context of high relational exchange (LMX)
underline the critical impact of supervision practices on subordinates’ personal resources,
turnover intentions and perceived stress. Indeed, supervisors should behave positively and
consistently in leading their subordinates. HR management practices (e.g. confidential
coaching, counseling, encouraging proactive and prohibitive voice behaviors, identifying
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, mentoring services, training employees to engage in
constructive conflict) can help subordinates and supervisors improve their interactions.
The underlying role of PsyCap further draws organizations’ attention to the importance
of a healthy workforce (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Tepper, 2007). Employers could implement
employee health progress program to detect the health status of their employees from time
to time. Human resource development strategies aimed at enhancing the components of
employees’ overall PsyCap (efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience) may be helpful to limit
subsequent reactions to inevitable negative work place situations. Organizations could also
consider providing additional support and resource-based interventions, like psychological
consultation, to build abused employees’ personal resources. Recent studies show that
overall PsyCap is malleable and can be developed in short training interventions with
employees (Luthans et al., 2008). For instance it is found that a highly focused, 2-h online
training intervention represents a convenient and effective strategy to improve employees’
PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2008). In a similar way, a specific training model called the PCI has
proved to enhance participants’ overall level of PsyCap and therefore to enhance their job
performance (Avey et al., 2010) and these improvements remained constant over one month,
thus proving the stability of the training effects (Dello Russo and Stoykova, 2015).
Like any other study, this study too has its limitations which provide as future avenue for
research. An alternative explanation to this model cannot be ruled out, such that instead of
PsyCap, LMX could play a mediating role as it has been examined as a mediator in abusive
supervision literature (Xu et al., 2015). To provide stronger evidence on the unique mediating
role of PsyCap, as a supplementary analysis, we tested the mediating effects of LMX.
However, LMX did not emerge as a potential underlying mechanism, indicating robustness of
the current model. Studies in future could test alternative mediators and moderators.
Leaders rarely exhibit one “style” of leadership. Researchers have recently called for
more studies that juxtapose multiple theories of leadership into one study in order to
compare and contrast different leadership styles (Chiaburu et al., 2014) and how they may
jointly affect follower outcomes. Accordingly, controlling for one leadership style may
MD significantly influence the validities of the other styles ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Studies in
future should undertake testing relationships between similarly situated, dark-sided
leadership behaviors, such as unethical leadership or destructive leadership. Testing
cultural dimensions (e.g. power distance) to understand how employees feel and react to
abusive supervisors is another promising direction. Additionally, future research could
consider the various outlets subordinates use to alleviate their psychological distress that
stems from abusive supervision, for instance abusing others at home, self-directed abuse
(e.g. alcoholism) or bullying others in their peer group. Prior research has identified many of
these behaviors as outcomes of abusive supervision, but as a future avenue of research,
clarification of self-regulations role in these relationships may provide an explanation as to
why some people find “relief” from abusive supervision through negative behaviors at home
instead of the workplace (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). We hope that this study’s findings
stimulate further research into this important area of inquiry.
Conclusion
Embedded in Conservation of Resource theory, by testing an integrated model of abusive
supervision, concomitantly testing its direct and indirect effects, this study addresses the
concerns echoed by Oh and Farh (2017, p. 23) “part of the difficulty is that the abusive
supervision literature has been more phenomenonally driven than theoretically driven.”
The findings of this study not only identify moderators to explain the conditions under
which abusive supervision is more or less likely to be associated with outcomes, but also
illuminates the processes underlying the relationship between abusive supervision and
outcomes, significantly contributing to the body of knowledge.
References
Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “The prevalence of
destructive leadership behaviour”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 438-452.
Agarwal, U.A. (2016), “Examining perceived organizational politics among Indian managers:
engagement as mediator and locus of control as moderator”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 415-437.
Agarwal, U.A. and Gupta, V. (2018), “Relationships between job characteristics, work engagement,
conscientiousness and managers’ turnover intentions: a moderated-mediation analysis”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 353-377.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions, Sage, London.
Amba-Rao, S.C., Petrick, J.A., Gupta, J.N. and Embse, T.J.V.D. (2000), “Comparative performance
appraisal practices and management values among foreign and domestic firms in India”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-89.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-450.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Sun, L.-Y. and Debrah, Y.A. (2007), “Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 191-211.
Aryee, S., Sun, L.-Y., Chen, Z.X.G. and Debrah, Y.A. (2008), “Abusive supervision and contextual
performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit
structure”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 393-411.
Ashforth, B. (1994), “Petty tyranny in organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 755-778.
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Avey, J.B. (2014), “The left side of psychological capital new evidence on the antecedents of psycap”, Abusive
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 141-149. supervision,
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F. and Jensen, S.M. (2009), “Psychological capital: a positive resource for combating PsyCap, LMX
employee stress and turnover”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 677-693.
and outcomes
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M. and Palmer, N.F. (2010), “Impact of positive psychological capital on
employee well-being over time”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F. and Mhatre, K.H. (2011), “Meta-analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-152.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 19-23.
Bandura, A. (2000), “Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness”, Handbook of
Principles of Organization Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 0011-0021.
Baranik, L.E., Roling, E.A. and Eby, L.T. (2010), “Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived
organizational support”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 366-373.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-2001.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. and Vohs, K.D. (2001), “Bad is stronger than good”,
Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 323-340.
Beehr, T.A., Farmer, S.J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D.M. and Nair, V.N. (2003), “The enigma of social
support and occupational stress: source congruence and gender role effects”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 220-240.
Berscheid, E. and Regan, P. (2005), The Psychology of Close Relationships, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Bligh, M., Kohles, J.C., Pearce, C.L., Justin, J.E. and Stovall, J.F. (2007), “When the romance is over:
follower perspectives of aversive leadership”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 528-557.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behavior”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 60-71.
Brayfield, A.H. and Crockett, W.H. (1955), “Employee attitudes and employee performance”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 396-240.
Budhwar, P. and Varma, A. (2010), “Guest editors’ introduction: emerging patterns of HRM in the new
Indian economic environment”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 345-351.
Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4,
pp. 912-928.
Burton, J.P. and Hoobler, J.M. (2006), “Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision”, Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 340-355.
Cavanaugh, M.A., Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V. and Boudreau, J.W. (2000), “An empirical examination
of self-reported work stress among US managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85
No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Černe, M., Jaklič, M. and Škerlavaj, M. (2013), “Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: a
multilevel perspective”, Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 63-85.
Chi, S.-C.S. and Liang, S.-G. (2013), “When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter?
Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 125-137.
MD Chiaburu, D.S., Smith, T.A., Wang, J. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2014), “Relative importance of leader
influences for subordinates’ proactive behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and task performance”,
Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 70-86.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Coff, R. and Kryscynski, D. (2011), “Invited editorial: drilling for micro-foundations of human
capital–based competitive advantages”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1429-1443.
Cohen, S. and Wills, T.A. (1985), “Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 310-331.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), “A global measure of perceived stress”, Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.M. (1986), “Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications
for research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Coutu, D.L. (2002), “How resilience works”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 46-56.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, p. 834.
De Hoogh, A.H.B. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2008), “Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with
leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: a
multi-method study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 297-311.
Day, D.V., Harrison, M.M. and Halpin, S.M. (2009), “An integrative approach to leader development”,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 77 No. 12, pp. 1235-1240.
Deci, E.L. and Cascio, W.F. (1972), “Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback
and threats”, available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED063558 (accessed December 22, 2016).
Dello Russo, S. and Stoykova, P. (2015), “Psychological capital intervention (PCI): a replication and
extension”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 329-347.
Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., Burris, E.R. and Andiappan, M. (2007), “Managerial modes of influence and
counterproductivity in organizations: a longitudinal business-unit-level investigation”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 993-1003.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social undermining in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2012), “A meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye
toward the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
Dupré, K.E., Inness, M., Connelly, C.E., Barling, J. and Hoption, C. (2006), “Workplace aggression in
teenage part-time employees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 987-1010.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 1.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and
conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Leseth, A.M.S.B. and Aasland, M.S. (2002), “Destructive leadership: a
behavioural model”, Forskningved Institutt for samfunnspsykologi, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-59.
Elangovan, A.R. and Xie, J.L. (2000), “Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate work
attitudes”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 319-328.
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Semmer, N., Kaiser-Freiburghaus, D., Ponte, L.-D. and Witschi, I. (2005),
“Chronic job stressors and job control: effects on event-related coping success and well-being”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 237-252.
Epitropaki, O. (2013), “Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and positive Abusive
psychological capital”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2013, p. 10925. supervision,
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M.L. and Liden, R.C. (2004), “Work value congruence and intrinsic career PsyCap, LMX
success: the compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational
support”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 305-332. and outcomes
Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R.D. and Liang, J. (2007), “Individual-level cultural values as moderators of
perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the

effects of power distance and traditionality”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3,
pp. 715-729.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 382-388.
Foss, N.J. (2011), “Invited editorial: why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and
what they may look like”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1413-1428.
George, J.M., Reed, T.F., Ballard, K.A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993), “Contact with AIDS patients as a
source of work-related distress: effects of organizational and social support”, Academy of
Goetzel, R.Z., Anderson, D.R., Whitmer, R.W., Ozminkowski, R.J., Dunn, R.L. and Wasserman, J. and
Committee, H.E.R.O. (HERO) R. (1998), “The relationship between modifiable health risks and
health care expenditures: an analysis of the multi-employer HERO health risk and cost
database”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 843-854.
Gonzalez-Morales, M.G., Kernan, M.C., Becker, T.E. and Eisenberger, R. (2016), “Defeating abusive
supervision: training supervisors to support subordinates”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 123-159.
Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a
developmental approach”, Leadership Frontiers, Vol. 143 No. 4, pp. 165-187.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied to
work–family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 350-370.
Grandey, A.A., Kern, J.H. and Frone, M.R. (2007), “Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders:
comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor”, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 63-69.
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of
employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 463-488.
Griffin, M.A., Rafferty, A.E. and Mason, C.M. (2004), “Who started this? Investigating different sources
of organizational change”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 555-570.
Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B. and Wilbanks, J.E. (2011), “Who is a mentor? A review of
evolving definitions and implications for research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 280-304.
Hair, B., Tatham Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J, Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2005),
Multivariate Data Analysis, Sage, London.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Jokisaari, M. (2011), “A 35-year follow-up study on burnout among
Finnish employees”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 345-350.
Halbesleben, J.R. and Bowler, W.M. (2007), “Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating
role of motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 93-112.
Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the ‘COR’
understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1334-1364.
MD Harmon-Jones, E.E. and Mills, J.E. (1999), “Cognitive dissonance: progress on a pivotal theory in social
psychology”, Scientific Conferences Program, 1997, U Texas, Arlington, TX, USA; This Volume
Is Based on Papers Presented at a 2-Day Conference at the University of Texas at Arlington,
Winter 1997, American Psychological Association, available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/
1999-02244-000/ (accessed December 23, 2016).
Harris, K. and Kacmar, K.M. (2005), “Easing the strain: the buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions
of politics–strain relationship”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78

No. 3, pp. 337-354.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M. and Zivnuska, S. (2007), “An investigation of abusive supervision
as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship”,
Harris, R.B., Harris, K.J. and Harvey, P. (2008), “An examination of the impact of supervisor on the
relationship between job strains and turnover intention for computer workers”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 2108-2131.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W. and Kacmar, C. (2007), “Coping with abusive supervision:
the neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes”,
Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2007), “Relationships between stressful work environments
and bullying: results of a large representative study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 220-242.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, London.
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (2000), “The cost of turnover”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 14-56.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-550.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-356.
Hobfoll, S.E. and Shirom, A. (2001), “Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and
management in the workplace”, in Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 57-80.
Hobman, E.V., Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Tang, R.L. (2009), “Abusive supervision in
advising relationships: investigating the role of social support”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 233-256.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), Workplace Bullying, John Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G.H. and Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions and Organizations across Nations, Sage.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W. and Eberly, M.B. (2008), “5 turnover and retention research: a
glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future”, The Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 231-274.
Hoobler, J.M. and Brass, D.J. (2006), “Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1125-1189.
House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley Pub, London.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hubert, A.B. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2001), “Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 415-424.
Huo, Y., Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2012), “Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing at? Effects of Abusive
aggressive humor on employee strain and addictive behaviors”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 supervision,
No. 4, pp. 859-885.
PsyCap, LMX
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic
test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-780. and outcomes
Karatepe, O.M. and Talebzadeh, N. (2016), “An empirical investigation of psychological capital among
flight attendants”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 193-202.
Kernan, M.C., Racicot, B.M. and Fisher, A.M. (2016), “Effects of abusive supervision, psychological
climate, and felt violation on work outcomes: a moderated mediated model”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 309-321.
Kiazad, K., Seibert, S.E. and Kraimer, M.L. (2014), “Psychological contract breach and employee
innovation: a conservation of resources perspective”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Kline, T.J. (2005), Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation, Sage, London.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Lazarus, R.S. (1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, Routledge.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), “Coping and adaptation”, The Handbook of Behavioral Medicine,
Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 282-325.
Le Fevre, M., Kolt, G.S. and Matheny, J. (2006), “Eustress, distress and their interpretation in primary
and secondary occupational stress management interventions: which way first?”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 547-565.
Lee, R.T. and Brotheridge, C.M. (2006), “When prey turns predatory: workplace bullying as a predictor
of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 352-377.
Lian, H., Ferris, D.L. and Brown, D.J. (2012), “Does taking the good with the bad make things worse?
How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and
organizational deviance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 117
No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Liao, Z. and Liu, Y. (2015), “Abusive supervision and psychological capital: a mediated moderation
model of team member support and supervisor-student exchange”, Frontiers of Business
Research in China, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 576-607.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-132.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2004), The Allure of Toxic Leadership, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Liu, L., Chang, Y., Fu, J., Wang, J. and Wang, L. (2012), “The mediating role of psychological capital on
the association between occupational stress and depressive symptoms among Chinese
physicians: a cross-sectional study”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Liu, W., Zhang, P., Liao, J., Hao, P. and Mao, J. (2016), “Abusive supervision and employee creativity: the
mediating role of psychological safety and organizational identification”, Management Decision,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 130-147.
Lord, R.G. and Hall, R.J. (2005), “Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 591-615.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2009), “Inquiry unplugged: building on Hackman’s potential perils of POB.
Journal of organizational behavior”, The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 323-328.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Positive psychological capital:
measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60
No. 3, pp. 541-572.
MD Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. and Avey, J.B. (2008), “The mediating role of psychological
capital in the supportive organizational climate – employee performance relationship”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 219-238.
McAllister, C.P., Mackey, J.D. and Perrewé, P.L. (2017), “The role of self-regulation in the relationship
between abusive supervision and job tension”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 416-428.
Mackey, J.D., Frieder, R.E., Brees, J.R. and Martinko, M.J. (2015), “Abusive supervision a meta-analysis
and empirical review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 813-840.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Major, B., Zubek, J.M., Cooper, M.L., Cozzarelli, C. and Richards, C. (1997), “Mixed messages:
implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a
stressful life event”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 1349-1367.
Mäkikangas, A., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and Bakker, A.B. (2013), “Does personality matter?
A review of individual differences in occupational well-being”, Advances in Positive
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 107-143.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: a comparison
of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52
No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Brees, J.R. and Mackey, J. (2013), “A review of abusive supervision research”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. S1, pp. S120-S137.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2008), “Early predictors of job burnout and engagement”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 498-512.
Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J. and Marinova, S.V. (2012), “A trickle-down
model of abusive supervision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 325-357.
Mitchell, M.S. and Ambrose, M.L. (2007), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating
effects of negative reciprocity beliefs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1159-1178.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005), “When moderation is mediated and mediation is
moderated”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 852-876.
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1997), “Aggression in the workplace”, Antisocial Behavior in
Organizations, Vol. 37 No. 2, p. 67.
Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F. and Hirst, G. (2014), “Psychological capital: a review and
synthesis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. S1, pp. S120-S138.
Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S. and Chan, K.-Y. (2008), “Personality and leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation
model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy”, Journal of Applied
O’driscoll, M.P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P.E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T.D., Cooper, C.L. and Sanchez, J.I.
(2003), “Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support,
work-family conflict, and psychological strain”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 326-345.
Oh, J.K. and Farh, C.I. (2017), “An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and
respond to abusive supervision over time”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 207-232.
Paul, H., Bamel, U.K. and Garg, P. (2016), “Employee resilience and OCB: mediating effects of
organizational commitment”, Vikalpa, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 308-324.
Pines, A.M. and Zaidman, N. (2014), “Stress and burnout in bicultural teams in hi-tech industry”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 819-832.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “The mismeasure of man Abusive
(agement) and its implications for leadership research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6, supervision,
pp. 615-656.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
PsyCap, LMX
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 and outcomes
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.
Priesemuth, M. and Schminke, M. (2017), “Helping thy neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed
abusive supervision in the workplace”, Journal of Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R., Hu, Q. and Ju, D. (2017), “The short-lived benefits of abusive
supervisory behavior for actors: an investigation of recovery and work engagement”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 567-589.
Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2017), “Linking workplace bullying and work engagement: the mediating
role of psychological contract violation”, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-71.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C. and e Cunha, M.P. (2012), “Authentic leadership promoting employees’
psychological capital and creativity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 429-437.
Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P., Tang, R.L. and Krebs, S.A. (2010), “Investigating the moderating effects of
leader–member exchange in the psychological contract breach–employee performance relationship:
a test of two competing perspectives”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 422-437.
Riga, A. (2006), “Business awakes to cost of stress”, The Gazette, Retrieved May, Vol. 1, pp. 2008-2017.
Rigotti, T. (2009), “Enough is enough? Threshold models for the relationship between psychological
contract breach and job-related attitudes”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Rooney, J.A., Gottlieb, B.H. and Newby-Clark, I.R. (2009), “How support-related managerial behaviors
influence employees: an integrated model”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 410-427.
Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B. (1984), “Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on
the effects of a leadership intervention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 428-487.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013), “How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 138-158.
Shoss, M.K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S.L.D. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2013), “Blaming the organization
for abusive supervision: the roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s
organizational embodiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 158-205.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445.
Sinha, J.B. and Sinha, D. (1990), “Role of social values in Indian organizations”, International Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 25 Nos 3-6, pp. 705-714.
Smith, L.G., Amiot, C.E., Callan, V.J., Terry, D.J. and Smith, J.R. (2012), “Getting new staff to stay: the
mediating role of organizational identification”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 45-64.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models”,
Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 290-312.
Tabachnick, B. (n.d.), Fidell (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper, Colling’s, New York, NY.
Taylor, S.E. (1991), “Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization
hypothesis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 67-87.
MD Ten Brummelhuis, L.L. and Bakker, A.B. (2012), “A resource perspective on the work–home interface:
the work–home resources model”, American Psychologist, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 545-654.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Tepper, B.J. (2007), “Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 261-289.
Tepper, B.J. and Almeda, M. (2012), “Negative exchanges with supervisors”, Personal Relationships at
Work, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 67-94.
Tepper, B.J. and Henle, C.A. (2011), “A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture
interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 487-498.
Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C. and Hua, W. (2009), “Abusive supervision,
intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: a power/dependence analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 156-167.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A. and Lambert, L.S. (2006), “Procedural injustice, victim
precipitation, and abusive supervision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 101-123.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the relationships between
coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes”, Journal of
Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., Lockhart, D.E. and Carr, J.C. (2007), “Abusive supervision, upward
maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress”, Academy of
Tepper, B.J., Simon, L. and Park, H.M. (2017), “Abusive supervision”, Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 123-152.
Tierney, P. and Tepper, B.J. (2007), “Introduction to the leadership quarterly special issue: destructive
leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 171-173.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior
research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 426-478.
Tuckey, M.R. and Neall, A.M. (2014), “Workplace bullying erodes job and personal resources:
between-and within-person perspectives”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 413-486.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic
leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure†”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.
Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., Avey, J.B. and Oke, A. (2011), “Retracted: Authentically leading groups:
the mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 4-24.
Wang, Y., Liu, L., Wang, J. and Wang, L. (2012), “Work-family conflict and burnout among Chinese
doctors: the mediating role of psychological capital”, Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 232-240.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 82-111.
Wheeler, A.R., Halbesleben, J.R. and Shanine, K. (2010), “Eating their cake and everyone else’s cake, too:
resources as the main ingredient to workplace bullying”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 6,
pp. 553-560.
Whitman, M.V., Halbesleben, J.R. and Holmes, O. (2014), “Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance:
the mediating role of emotional exhaustion”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 38-53.
Wright, T.A. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2004), “Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an Abusive
examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout”, Journal of Business supervision,
and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 389-412.
Wu, W.-L. and Lee, Y.-C. (2016), “Do employees share knowledge when encountering abusive
PsyCap, LMX
supervision?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-168. and outcomes
Xu, A.J., Loi, R. and Lam, L.W. (2015), “The bad boss takes it all: how abusive supervision and
leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence”, The Leadership Quarterly,

Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 763-774.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C.K. and Miao, Q. (2012), “Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The
mediating role of LMX”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 531-543.
Yagil, D. (2005), “Employees attribution of abusive supervisory behaviours”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 307-326.
Yagil, D. (2006), “The relationship of service provider power motivation, empowerment and burnout to
customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 258-270.
Zhao, H.A.O., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C. and Bravo, J. (2007), “The impact of psychological contract
breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 647-680.
Further reading
Barkhuizen, N. and Rothmann, S. (2006), “Work engagement of academic staff in South African higher
education institutions”, Management Dynamics, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 38.
Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective
for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Mikkelsen, E.G. and Einarsen, S. (2002), “Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and
psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: the role of state negative affectivity and
generalized self-efficacy”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 397-405.
Karatepe, O.M. (2014), “Hope, work engagement, and organizationally valued performance outcomes:
an empirical study in the hotel industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 678-698.
Lepper, M.R. and Greene, D. (1975), “Turning play into work: effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic
rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31
No. 3, p. 479.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Li, W. (2005), “The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: exploring the relationship with performance”, Management and Organization Review,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 249-271.
Matta, F.K., Erol-Korkmaz, H.T., Johnson, R.E. and Biçaksiz, P. (2014), “Significant work events and
counterproductive work behavior: the role of fairness, emotions, and emotion regulation”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 920-944.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 457-487.
Corresponding author
Upasna A. Agarwal can be contacted at: upasnaaagarwal@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Article 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Decision

Examining links between abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and outcomes

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

developing a general understanding of how abusive supervision impacts on employees and

Abusive Supervision Perceived Stress Figure 1.

supervision involves continuing exposure to hierarchical mistreatment and refers to

Articles that Physical, verbal Inclusion

Petty tyranny Ashforth (1997) N N V/NV F N

Abusive supervision and PsyCap

difficult events. Embedded in an environment of negativity, employees often begin to appraise

Mediating role of PsyCap

Moderating effects of LMX

Discriminant and convergent validity

AB5 0.823 11.200***

Common method variance (CMV )

Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI GFI NFI RMSEA

1 Factor modela 888 258 3.4 0.36 0.42 0.20 0.08

Test of moderation and conditional indirect effect

Direct and mediated effects

supervision-perceived stress ( β ¼ 0.20, t ¼ 2.0, po0.01) remained significant with a drop-in

Variables and steps PsyCap Turnover intentions Perceived stress

Outcome variable ¼ Perceived stress; Mediator ¼ PsyCap

perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the

of politics–strain relationship”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78

leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence”, The Leadership Quarterly,

You might also like