See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304194261

Supervision, Abusive

Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.22005-9

CITATIONS READS

0 56

2 authors:

Christine Kermond John Schaubroeck

Michigan State University Michigan State University
9 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 108 PUBLICATIONS 7,377 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

I am currently working on projects relating to outcomes of leaders in new assignments, experiences

with "dirty" work tasks and contexts, abusive supervision, ethical leadership, and knowledge sharing.
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Schaubroeck on 06 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Supervision, Abusive
Christine MY Kermond, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
John M Schaubroeck, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract
This article summarizes research on abusive supervision in organizations. Abusive supervision refers to “subordinates’
perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors”. We
review consequences of abusive supervision as well as the explanatory mechanisms of its relationship with these outcomes.
We also discuss supervisor and subordinate factors contributing to abusive supervision perceptions. Finally, we review current
methodological issues and describe promising future research directions.
Over the past two decades, the topic of abusive supervision
has generated substantial interest in the popular press
and among organizational scholars. Based on survey data
reported by Schat et al. (2006), nearly 50% of employees in
the United States have experienced abusive supervision in
their working careers. One in seven employees reports that
his or her current supervisor is abusive. Tepper et al. (2006)
estimated that abusive supervision costs organizations
$23.8 billion per annum. Since Tepper’s (2000) seminal
article that introduced the construct of abusive supervision,
there have been over 100 journal articles published on the
topic (Kermond et al., 2013a). Tepper defined abusive
supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to
which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile
verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”
(p. 178). Examples of abusive supervisor behaviors include
belittling and ridiculing subordinates, giving subordinates
the silent treatment, making negative comments about
subordinates to others, invading subordinates’ privacy, and
taking personal credit for the work of subordinates.
The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of the
current state of knowledge about abusive supervision and to
discuss emerging directions in theory and research. We orga-
nize our review in six sections: (1) Conceptual facets of abusive
supervision, (2) Consequences of abusive supervision, (3)
Mechanisms linking abusive supervision to outcomes,
(4) Predictors of abusive supervision, (5) Methodological
issues in abusive supervision research, and (6) Promising new
directions in abusive supervision research.
Conceptual Facets of Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision is usually examined in the context of
a conventional supervisor–subordinate dyad, wherein the
supervisory relationship is formal and position power is
asymmetrical. It is conceptualized as a persistent and ongoing
hostile behavioral pattern, meaning a one-time hostile
outburst would not be considered abusive supervision. In
addition, abusive supervision is an employee’s subjective
assessment of his or her supervisor’s hostile behaviors toward
him or her personally. Thus, the same behavior can potentially
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 23
be perceived as abusive by one subordinate but not the other.
Likewise the same behavior, for example, yelling, can be
perceived to be abusive in one context (e.g., an office envi-
ronment) but not abusive in another (e.g., a football coach
directing players on the field).
Consequences of Abusive Supervision
Most abusive supervision research has focused its connections
to individual victim’s behavioral responses, attitudinal reac-
tions, and personal well-being.
Work Behaviors and Attitudes
Aggression and Deviance
Victims of abusive supervision are often seen to engage in
aggressive or deviant behaviors directed toward the supervisor,
coworkers, and/or the organization (Mitchell and Ambrose,
2007). Meta-analyses have reported that on average, abusive
supervision exhibits moderate relationships with deviant and
counterproductive behaviors (r ¼ 0.39, k ¼ 59, N ¼ 19 700;
Kermond et al., 2013a; see also Schyns and Schilling, 2013).
The relationship between perceptions of supervisory abuse and
organization-directed retaliation was found to be stronger
when the victim perceived that the organization is responsible
for the abuse (Bowling and Michel, 2011). Tepper et al. (2008)
observed that aggressive responses to abusive supervision were
more likely to arise when the organizational context itself was
perceived to be hostile, such as when coworkers condone
deviance and engage in deviant acts themselves. Aggressive
responses to abusive supervision also appear to be more
prevalent when there is a hostile climate within a work group
(Mawritz et al., 2012), or when there is a climate of uncertainty
concerning the organization’s leadership (Thau et al., 2009).
Victims who intend to leave the organization were theorized to
be less concerned with the repercussions of deviance, and thus
are more likely to engage in retaliatory deviance against their
supervisor (Tepper et al., 2009).
Performance and Prosocial Behaviors
Subordinates who report higher levels of abusive supervision
tend to receive lower supervisory ratings of job performance
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.22005-9 701
702 Supervision, Abusive
(r ¼ 0.23, k ¼ 14, N ¼ 3185; Kermond et al., 2013b; see also
Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Abusive supervision victims are
also less likely to engage in extra-role organizational citizenship
behaviors in support of the organization (e.g., attend non-
mandatory company functions, put in extra effort into work;
r ¼ 0.23, k ¼ 13, N ¼ 2953) or toward coworkers (e.g., adjust
their work schedule to accommodate coworkers; r ¼ 0.20,
k ¼ 10, N ¼ 2525; Kermond et al., 2013b). Liu et al. (2012)
reported that abusive supervision exhibited a stronger nega-
tive relationship with subordinates’ creativity levels when
subordinates attributed supervisory abuse to the supervisors’
injurious motives rather than to performance-promotion
motives.
Attitudes and Justice Perceptions
Abusive supervision is negatively related to subordinates’ work
and organization-related attitudes. For example, employees
experiencing higher levels of supervisory abuse report lower job
satisfaction (r ¼ 0.38, k ¼ 24, N ¼ 8953), lower organiza-
tional commitment (r ¼ 0.21, k ¼ 15, N ¼ 4354), and higher
turnover intention (r ¼ 0.32, k ¼ 21, N ¼ 7982; Kermond et al.,
2013b; see also Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Abusive supervi-
sion is also negatively associated with perceptions of the
supervisor’s interpersonal justice practices (i.e., fairness of
interpersonal treatment; r ¼ 0.61, k ¼ 10, N ¼ 2290) and
procedural fairness (i.e., fairness of procedures used to make
allocation decisions; r ¼ 0.39, k ¼ 6, N ¼ 1658; Kermond
et al., 2013b; see also Schyns and Schilling, 2013).
Victim Personal and Family Well-Being
Psychological and Physical Health
Much research has examined the influence of abusive super-
vision on employee psychological and physical well-being.
Evidence suggests that experiencing abusive supervision is
psychologically draining for subordinates and impairs their
capacity to self-regulate (Lian et al., 2012a). Abused
employees often suffer from emotional exhaustion (Aryee
et al., 2008). Victims of supervisory abuse also report higher
levels of insomnia (Rafferty et al., 2010) and a greater
tendency to self-medicate with alcohol (Bamberger and
Bacharach, 2006). Meta-analyses report moderate correla-
tions between abusive supervision and psychological distress
(r ¼ 0.36, k ¼ 40, N ¼ 13 330; Kermond et al., 2013a; see also
Schyns and Schilling, 2013), whereas relationships between
abusive supervision and physical health symptoms are lower
in magnitude (r ¼ 0.16, k ¼ 10, N ¼ 4662; Kermond et al.,
2013a). The strength of the relationship between abusive
supervision and psychological distress appears to be more
pronounced among subordinates with fewer job mobility
options (Tepper, 2000). Abused employees also tend to be
more depressed and anxious (Tepper, 2000).
Family
Individuals who report higher levels of abusive supervision
tend to experience higher levels of conflict between their work
and family demands (Tepper, 2000). They are also more
inclined to take negative work emotions out on family
members or domestic partners by exhibiting family-directed
aggression (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). Similarly, Carlson
et al. (2011) reported crossover effects of abusive supervision
from work to family; higher levels of abuse were associated
with greater relationship tension, lower family satisfaction, and
more work-to-family conflict. A separate study found that
subordinates’ psychological distress explained the relationship
between abusive supervision and subordinates’ aggression
toward their spouse or partner (Restubog et al., 2011).
Mechanisms Linking Abusive Supervision
to Outcomes
A good deal of scholarly effort has been devoted to identifying
explanatory mechanisms that link abusive supervision to
adverse employee outcomes. Most theories of abusive super-
vision can be broadly distinguished between those that focus
on relational mechanisms, such as exchange theories and other
theories that concern perceptions of fairness, and theories that
emphasize self-regulatory mechanisms.
Relational Theories
Relational theories as frameworks that describe how employees
respond to abusive supervision based on inferences they draw
from the abuse about their relationship with the supervisor
and/or the organization. One such framework is fairness
theory, in which judgments of fairness are driven by individ-
uals’ assignments of responsibility (Folger and Cropanzano,
2001). Uncertainty management theory highlights how being
mistreated is especially important for employees who are
uncertain about themselves or their relationship with the
organization (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002). Social exchange
theory describes the costs and benefits to employees of main-
taining different forms of reciprocity-based relationships with
their supervisor and the organization (Blau, 1964). Each of
these theories has been invoked in studies highlighting fairness
of some kind, such as supervisor interpersonal or procedural
fairness, or in studying the influence of abusive supervision on
the victim’s level of trust in the supervisor. For example, an
exchange perspective may highlight how abusive supervision
elicits negative reciprocity, such that subordinates respond to
negative supervisor treatment with negative behaviors (e.g.,
Peng et al., forthcoming). An uncertainty management or
a fairness theory perspective may emphasize how being abused
activates unfairness cognitions that confirm or disconfirm an
existing schema about the organization, and this in turn
influences the employee’s motivation (e.g., Mayer et al., 2012;
Thau et al., 2009). Below we highlight studies of abusive
supervision that examined mediators that were consistent with
one or more of these relational theories of abusive supervision.
Justice Perceptions
Tepper (2000) reported that overall justice perceptions
partially mediated the relationship between abusive supervi-
sion and emotional exhaustion and anxiety. Aryee et al. (2007)
demonstrated that abusive supervision elicits perceptions of
interactional justice (i.e., the combination of interpersonal and
informational fairness), which in turn influences subordinate
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship
behaviors. In a study reported by Burton and Hoobler (2011),

interactional justice mediated the relationship between abusive
supervision and subordinate aggression. Zellars et al. (2002)
reported that subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions
mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and
subordinate organizational citizenship behaviors.
Leader–Member Exchange
Not surprisingly, abusive supervision appears to be associated
with subordinate–supervisor relationships of poorer quality, in
the organizational behavior literature leader-follower rela-
tionship quality is commonly operationalized by subordinate
perceptions of the leader–member exchange relationship.
Leader–member exchange quality refers to one’s level of posi-
tive emotional connection to the supervisor, including affect-
based trust and loyalty directed toward him or her (Scandura
and Graen, 1984). When subordinates are in a poor exchange
relationship, they are seen to withhold valuable exchange
resources from the supervisor. Xu et al. (2012) reported that
leader–member exchange quality fully mediated the relation-
ship between abusive supervision and subordinate perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Martinko
et al. (2011) suggested that the relationship between abusive
supervision and leader–member exchange may be less clear-
cut, arguing that leader–member exchange might even be
antecedent to abusive supervision rather than the reverse.
Attributing Blame to the Organization
Abused subordinates can indirectly reciprocate supervisor
abuse by engaging in organization-directed deviance. Abusive
supervisors may not only be viewed as representing the
organization, many subordinates perceive them as embodying
the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010). Such employees
may hold the organization responsible for the abuse and
direct retributive actions against the organization. Shoss et al.
(2013) examined the mediating role of perceived organiza-
tional support, defined as subordinate’s perception that the
organization values them and cares about their well-being.
Their findings suggested that employees attributed their
mistreatment partly to a lack of organizational support, and
thus victims tended to engage in organization-directed devi-
ance and withhold supportive extrarole contributions to the
organization. Similarly, Tepper et al. (2008) reported results
suggesting that abused subordinates also blamed the organi-
zation for the abuse, resulting in lower organizational
commitment.
Emotions and Self-Regulation
Victims of abusive supervision may experience distinctly high
levels of anger, fear, and/or anxiety (e.g., Rafferty et al., 2010;
Tepper et al., 2009; Wu and Hu, 2009). Yet, because of the
asymmetrical balance of power with the supervisor, abused
subordinates may be deterred from directly confronting the
supervisor or engaging in retributive actions against him or
her. This can lead to pent-up aggression, which is often
redirected toward more vulnerable targets. A displaced-
aggression perspective (Dollard et al., 1939) is suggested by
certain findings. For example, as noted above (Section
Family), studies find that abusive supervision victims tend to
experience a variety of troubling cross-over effects in their
Supervision, Abusive 703
home life. These effects have been attributed in part to dis-
placed aggression (Carlson et al., 2011; Hoobler and
Brass, 2006).
The self-regulation impairment perspective argues that
experiencing abusive supervision diminishes the victims’
capacity for self-regulation (e.g., behaving normatively and
rationally), because they are preoccupied with processing and
interpreting the abusive events (Thau et al., 2007). Studies have
reported that when abused subordinates had limited in self-
regulatory capacities, as reflected in poorer impulse control
(Lian et al., forthcoming-a; Thau and Mitchell, 2010) or
uncertainty about their job competence (Mayer et al., 2012),
they were more likely to respond to abuse by acting out in
a counterproductive manner. Conversely, us of effective coping
strategies appear to weaken the relationship between percep-
tions of abuse and subordinate deviance (Nandkeolyar et al.,
2014).
Predictors of Abusive Supervision
Researchers have examined several antecedents of abusive
supervision. The studied antecedents are primarily character-
istics of supervisors and subordinates.
Supervisor Characteristics
Supervisor Traits
A small number of studies have examined relationships
between supervisor traits such as authoritarian leadership style
and supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision.
Subordinates who viewed their leader as adopting an author-
itarian leadership style tended to also perceive higher levels of
abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2007). Authoritarian lead-
ership style is defined as a “leader’s behavior that asserts
absolute authority and control over subordinates and
demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates”
(Cheng et al., 2004: p. 91). Supervisor Machiavellianism,
which is the extent to which an individual manipulates and
exploits others to maximize his or her self-interests (Christie
et al., 1970), was positively related to supervisor authori-
tarian leadership style, which in turn predicted abusive
supervision (Kiazad et al., 2010). Furthermore, subordinates
with lower levels of organization-based self-esteem tend to
perceive higher levels of abusive supervision when their
supervisors exhibited an authoritarian leadership style (Kiazad
et al., 2010).
Supervisors’ Experience of Abusive Supervision
Just as abused subordinates may often displace their aggression
onto individuals who are more vulnerable than the perpetrator
of the abuse, supervisors may also displace the abuse they
experience from their manager onto their own subordinates.
Supervisors who perceive higher levels of procedural injustice
(Tepper et al., 2006), interactional injustice (Hoobler and Hu,
2013; Rafferty et al., 2010), and psychological contract viola-
tions (Hoobler and Brass, 2006; Rafferty et al., 2010) are seen
as more abusive by their subordinates. Abusive supervision can
also ‘trickle down’ (or ‘cascade’ down) a chain of command.
Abusive behaviors have been found to exhibit indirect effects
704 Supervision, Abusive
on abusive behaviors across two hierarchical levels, such that
higher level manager abuse predicted lower level manager
abuse (Liu et al., 2012; Mawritz et al., 2012).
In further support of the displaced-aggression hypothesis,
Tepper et al. (2006) reported that supervisor depression
mediated the relationship between procedural injustice
perceptions and abusive behaviors. In addition, supervisors’
conflicts with other supervisors at the same level were posi-
tively related to their subordinates’ perceptions of abusive
supervision (Harris et al., 2011). In addition, when supervi-
sors’ workplace stress levels were high, their direct reports re-
ported significantly more abusive supervision (Burton et al.,
2012). Finally, Kiewitz et al. (2012) drew upon social
learning theory to explain how supervisor childhood experi-
ences affect their abusive tendencies. They found that super-
visors’ experiences of family undermining (such as parent
criticism, insults, unpleasant or angry treatment) during
childhood were linked to their subordinates’ reports of
abusive supervision. This connection was weaker among
supervisors with higher levels of impulse control.
Subordinate Characteristics
Subordinate Precipitating Factors
According to the victim precipitation model (Elias, 1986),
targets of abuse often ‘precipitate’ abuse, meaning they indi-
rectly or directly provoke the abuse. For example, abusive
supervision victims may tend to be those individuals who are
seen by the supervisor as the most vulnerable persons on
whom they can release their own pent-up aggression. Victims
may also provoke abuse because of their own negative dispo-
sitions, such as by behaving in a hostile manner toward others.
A subordinate trait that is examined most frequently in this
context is negative affectivity, which is characterized by
frequent negative mood states such as feeling distressed, jittery,
angry, depressed, or upset (Watson et al., 1988). Negative
affectivity of subordinates has been linked to their reports of
abusive supervision (e.g., Hoobler and Hu, 2013; Tepper et al.,
2006), although it is uncertain whether this reflects the
tendency of high-negative-affectivity individuals to provoke
abuse or rather a general tendency of high-negative-affectivity
individuals to interpret ambiguous stimuli in negative ways.
Low job-related competence or low job performance quality
may also make a subordinate more likely to become a victim of
abusive supervision (Tepper et al., 2006).
Subordinate Attributions
Martinko et al. (2011) reported that employees with a hostile
attribution style (i.e., attribute negative events to external and
stable causes) perceived more abusive supervision than others,
and that this relationship was mediated by perceptions of
leader–member exchange quality. Subordinates’ levels of
psychological entitlement may also affect their attributions
concerning their supervisor’s abusive behaviors. Because
psychologically entitled subordinates feel that they deserve
high levels of praise irrespective of their performance or ability,
compared to less psychologically entitled subordinates, they
are more likely to perceive supervisor behaviors as being
abusive (Harvey et al., 2014).
Methodological Issues in Abusive Supervision
Research
Similar Constructs
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of constructs that
conceptually overlap with abusive supervision. These constructs
include petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), supervisor bullying (Fox
and Stallworth, 2005), aversive leadership (e.g., Bligh et al.,
2006; Pearce and Sims, 2002), supervisor social undermining
(e.g., Duffy et al., 2002), supervisor verbal aggression (e.g.,
Chang and Lyons, 2012; Grandey et al., 2007), and supervisor
incivility (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Leiter et al., 2011). See
Table 1 for the definitions of these constructs.
These constructs all refer to hostile and/or aggressive verbal
or nonverbal behaviors directed by a supervisor toward
a specific subordinate (Hershcovis, 2011). Scholars have raised
concerns about construct proliferation in this domain, while
also cautioning against ignoring key conceptual differences
between the constructs, such as the intensity, intentionality,
and perseverance of the abuse (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011; Tepper
Table 1 Definitions of constructs similar to abusive supervision
Supervisor abuse variable Definition
Abusive supervision “Abusive supervision refers to subordinates’
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).
Petty tyranny A petty tyrant is defined as “an individual
who lords his or her power over others
. to overcontrol other and to treat
them in an arbitrary, uncaring and
punitive manner” (Ashforth, 1994:
pp. 755–756).
Supervisor bullying “A situation where one or several individuals
persistently over a period of time perceive
themselves to be on the receiving end of
negative actions from one or several
persons, in a situation where the target of
bullying has difficulty in defending him or
herself against these actions” (Einarsen
and Skogstad, 1996: p. 191).
Aversive leadership “Leadership that primarily relies on coercive
power and is rooted in punishment”
(Pearce and Sims, 2002: p. 173).
Supervisor social “Behavior intended to hinder, over time, the
undermining ability to establish and maintain positive
interpersonal relationships, work-related
success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy
et al., 2002: p. 332).
Supervisor verbal “Verbal forms of aggression involve efforts
aggression to inflict harm on others through words
rather than deeds” (Baron and Neuman,
1996: p. 163).
Supervisor incivility “Workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant
behavior with ambiguous intent to harm
the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect” (Andersson
and Pearson, 1999: p. 457).

and Henle, 2011). Conversely, the metaconstruct of destruc-
tive leadership refers to generally undesirable characteristics or
behaviors of leaders that are not necessarily targeted toward
a specific subordinate (Einarsen et al., 2007; Padilla et al.,
2007). Constructs included under the rubric of destructive
leadership are distinct from those just mentioned because they
refer to subordinates’ perceptions of leader behaviors directed
toward others in general, rather than toward a specific subor-
dinate (e.g., despotic leadership; De Hoogh and Den Hartog,
2008), or to behaviors or traits that do not constitute abuse,
per se, but which are seen as undesirable for other reasons
(e.g., authoritarian leadership style, narcissistic supervision,
negative leadership, psychopathic leadership; Schyns and
Schilling, 2013).
Self-Reported Data and Cross-Sectional Research Designs
Abusive supervision researchers have mainly relied on variables
measured at one time point or measured outcome variables at
a separate point in time (e.g., staggering data collection over
two to three periods). Many studies have relied exclusively on
subordinates’ self-reports about both their leaders’ behaviors
and the outcome variables. Because abusive supervision is
conceptualized as a dyadic process, the potential benefits of
aggregating perceptions across multiple subordinates of the
same leaders in reducing common method variance are not
realized. Thus, cross-sectional studies and studies that take little
advantage of time separation or which do not focus on
moderated relationships are prone to spurious inflation of
studied relationships owing to common method variance.
Among the few exceptions, Thau and Mitchell (2010: sample 3)
employed a repeated measures design that measured abusive
supervision and deviant behaviors over 10 time points. The
authors found that the within-person relationship between
abusive supervision and deviant behaviors was mediated by
self-regulation impairment. Another example was provided by
Lian et al. (forthcoming-b). They obtained repeated measures of
abusive supervision and subordinate deviant behavior,
measuring both variables at two time points. In one study in
which the measures were separated by a 20-month lag, their
cross-lagged analyses suggested that subordinate deviant
behavior leads to abusive supervision rather than the reverse. A
second study with a 6-month lag between repeated measures
suggested a reciprocal relationship between subordinate
deviant behavior and abusive supervision. They argued that the
differences between the two studies in time lag explained the
diverging results.
Inadequate Model Specification
Although there are a few exceptions (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007;
Lian et al., 2012b; Peng et al., forthcoming), abusive supervi-
sion studies have tended to focus on one mediating variable
at a time. Examining a single mediating pathway may not
adequately reflect the various theoretical mechanisms respon-
sible for the relationship between abusive supervision and
employee outcomes. This is of particular concern in studies in
which abusive supervision and the putative mediator are not
separated in time and common method variance is a concern,
as this can exaggerate the estimated sizes of indirect effects.
Supervision, Abusive 705
Promising New Directions in Abusive Supervision
Research
In addition to promising trends in the direction of longitu-
dinal designs and investigating multiple pathways of media-
tion as noted above, there are other positive trends in the way
abusive supervision is studied and in the depth and scope of
the research questions addressed. Researchers have moved
toward examining the social context of abusive supervision,
including investigations of the role of coworkers’ abusive
supervision levels in how individuals respond to their own
experiences of abuse, testing multilevel processes related to
abusive supervision, examining abusive supervision in non-
Western cultural contexts and investigating cultural differ-
ences as moderator variables, and giving long-overdue
empirical attention to means of preventing abusive
supervision.
Third-Party Observers of Abusive Supervision
The deontic justice perspective suggests that observers of
injustices inflicted on others experience outrage and often
engage in retributive actions to punish the source of the
injustice and aid the victims (e.g., Lotz et al., 2011; Turillo
et al., 2002). A third-party observer may learn about the
abuse of another individual through word of mouth from the
abused employee or from other observers. If the observer
deems the target of abuse as undeserving of the ill treatment,
he or she may attempt to restore justice by lashing out to the
supervisor, or report the abuse to a higher authority in the
organization (Skarlicki and Kulik, 2005). Umphress et al.
(2013) found that third-party observers displayed anger
toward abusive supervisors and they reported an intention to
take corrective or punitive response, especially when they
perceived that the abuse was intended to harm the target
employee.
Multilevel Research
Tepper (2007) called for more multilevel research on abusive
supervision, noting that “abusive supervision is a multilevel
phenomenon and the field needs to move beyond individual-
level research” (p. 281). One approach to multilevel research
on abusive supervision examines the interaction between
subordinates’ own reports of experiencing abusive supervision
and the average group experience (i.e., average levels of abusive
supervision as reported by work unit peers (i.e., ‘work unit,’
‘coworker,’ or ‘peer’ abusive supervision)). Hannah et al.
(2013) observed an interaction between subordinates’ own
reports of abuse and the average level of work unit member
abuse in predicting subordinates’ ethical behaviors and inten-
tions among soldiers deployed in combat. Subordinate’s own
experience of abusive supervision was more strongly related to
outcomes when coworker unit abusive supervision was lower.
This study drew from a self-regulation perspective of abusive
supervision, emphasizing the strength of moral standards and
moral courage as mediators of these interactive effects. Drawing
from a social exchange perspective, Peng et al. (forthcoming)
examined the interaction of peer and own abusive supervi-
sion on employees’ leader–member exchange perceptions and
706 Supervision, Abusive
affect-based trust in peers. These exchange variables partially
mediated the interactive effects of own and peer abusive
supervision on task performance and helping behaviors
directed toward peers. Only employees who were low in both
own and peer abusive supervision exhibited high levels of
helping behavior and task performance, a pattern consistent
with Hannah et al. (2013).
In sum, a higher level of work unit abuse is associated with
weaker relationships between individual abusive supervision
and subordinate outcomes, reflecting a pattern of substitution
moderation. Thus, the social context of abusive supervision
affects how employees respond to their own abusive treatment
by the supervisor. Employees are especially impacted by such
abusive behavior when they are singled out for abuse. It is also
noteworthy that the findings of the studies reviewed above
concerning own and coworkers’ experiences of abusive super-
vision are not consistent with the deontic justice literature, in
which coworkers’ experiences of injustice are met with aversive
psychological reactions and aggressive responses, much as the
individuals react to experiencing the injustice themselves. Peng
et al. (forthcoming) noted that conflicting results across the two
approaches may be due to the fact that research on deontic
reactions to injustice has been conducted primarily in labora-
tory settings. Unlike a workplace, laboratory participants would
be less likely to fear repercussions for confronting or reporting
an abusive supervisor or expressing moral outrage for the
abuse.
Cross-Cultural Research
Abusive supervision research using samples from outside of the
United States has been growing steadily, spanning many
different regions of the world (e.g., Australia, Belgium, Canada,
China, India, Philippines, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea,
New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, and Taiwan). Hu et al. (2011)
compared participant responses from Taiwan and the United
States and found that employees generally experienced abusive
supervision as a single latent construct. However, Taiwanese
employees reported that supervisor belittling was more essen-
tial to their conceptualization of ‘abusive supervision’ than
workers from United States. Belittling behaviors may reflect an
underlying construct of ‘saving face,’ which Confucianism-
based societies (e.g., Taiwan) value as an important part of
interpersonal interactions (House et al., 2004).
Power distance orientation has been the most commonly
studied cultural construct in the abusive supervision literature.
It is defined as the extent to which individuals accept an
unequal distribution of power in organizations and institu-
tions. As one might expect, subordinates who score high on
power distance orientation exhibit weaker relationships
between abusive supervision and subordinates’ psychological
health and job satisfaction (Lin et al., 2013). Subordinates high
in power distance orientation viewed abusive supervision as
more fair and were less likely to react with interpersonal devi-
ance than subordinates low in power distance orientation
(Lian et al., 2012a). Another cultural predisposition variable of
interest to abusive supervision scholars is Chinese traditionality
(i.e., the degree to which an individual is fatalistic and values
respect for authorities and elders). Liu et al. (2010) observed
that the relationship between abusive supervision and
supervisor-directed deviance was stronger for individuals who
did not report high traditionality.
Preventing and Managing Abusive Supervision
Preventing or managing abusive supervision ought to be on the
forefront of research given its deleterious impact on employees
and organizations. Yet there have been few published empirical
assessments of abusive supervision intervention programs. A
study conducted by Leiter et al. (2011) is an exception. They
evaluated the efficacy of a general civility intervention in
a sample of health care workers. The program consisted of
trained facilitators meeting with employees on a weekly basis for
6 months. Training content included learning to identify inci-
vility behaviors (e.g., rude and condescending behavior), effec-
tively respond to incivility, and practicing new ways to
interacting positively. Compared to a contrast group that did not
formally participate in the sessions, treatment group participants
reported lower experienced incivility from supervisor and
coworkers, lower report of self-enacted incivility behaviors, and
higher civility within the work unit overall (e.g., spirit of team-
work in work group, disputes are resolved fairly).
A number of legislative developments may encourage
organizations to devote greater attention to preventing abusive
supervision. In many countries, employees may seek redress in
civil courts for abusive supervision as well as for coworker
abuse. As of 6 February 2014, 26 state legislatures in the United
States had introduced the Healthy Workplace Bill, which
includes specific penalties for abuse of employees. Similar legal
protections have been become law in other countries, including
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Great
Britain, Iceland, Ireland, and Norway.
Conclusion
Given the detrimental impact of abusive supervision on
employee outcomes, researchers have examined a wide range of
antecedents and mechanisms through which abusive supervi-
sion arises and affects victims’ behaviors, attitudes, and well-
being. The literature has become very vibrant in more recent
years, broadening in the depth and scope of research questions
examined, improving in methodological sophistication, and
engaging a fairly large network of scholars worldwide. While the
future of abusive supervision research looks promising, we hope
that abusive supervision scholars and those investigating similar
constructs (e.g., supervisor incivility) can begin to work together
in addressing their common questions. We also encourage
researchers to become more active in producing evidence-based
approaches for preventing supervisory abuse and for enabling
workers to more effectively confront abuse without suffering
adverse personal consequences.
See also: Job Satisfaction; Leader–Member Exchange Theory;
Managerial and Organizational Cognition; Negotiation and
Conflict, The Psychology of; Organizational Climate in the Work
Setting; Organizational Commitment; Organizational Justice;
Power, Politics, and Influence in Organizations; Workplace
Deviance; Workplace Stress.

Bibliography
Andersson, L.M., Pearson, C.M., 1999. Tit for tat? the spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review 24, 452–471.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Sun, L.Y., Debrah, Y.A., 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology
92, 191–201.
Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X.G., Debrah, Y.A., 2008. Abusive supervision and
contextual performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moder-
ating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review 4, 393–411.
Ashforth, B.E., 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations 47, 755–778.
Bamberger, P.A., Bacharach, S.B., 2006. Abusive supervision and subordinate
problem drinking: taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into
account. Human Relations 59, 723–752.
Baron, R.A., Neuman, J.H., 1996. Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior 22,
161–173.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Willey & Sons, New Jersey,
New York.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., Kohles, J.C., 2006. The importance of self–and shared
leadership in team based knowledge work: a meso-level model of leadership
dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, 296–318.
Bowling, N.A., Michel, J.S., 2011. Why do you treat me badly? the role of attributions
regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision.
Work & Stress 25, 309–320.
Burton, J.P., Hoobler, J.M., 2011. Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: the role
of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 52,
389–398.
Burton, J.P., Hoobler, J.M., Scheuer, M.L., 2012. Supervisor workplace stress and
abusive supervision: the buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and
Psychology 27, 271–279.
Carlson, D.S., Ferguson, M., Perrewe, P.L., Whitten, D., 2011. The fallout from
abusive supervision: an examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel
Psychology 64, 937–961.
Chang, C.H., Lyons, B.J., 2012. Not all aggressions are created equal: a multi-foci
approach to workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
17, 79–92.
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Wu, T.Y., Huang, M.P., Farh, J.L., 2004. Paternalistic
leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese
organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 71, 89–117.
Christie, R., Geis, F.L., Berger, D., 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic
Press, New York.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., Langhout, R.D., 2001. Incivility in the
workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6,
64–80.
De Hoogh, A.H., Den Hartog, D.N., 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships
with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subor-
dinates’ optimism: a multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly 19, 297–311.
Dollard, J., Miller, N.E., Doob, L.W., Mowrer, O.H., Sears, R.R., 1939. Frustration and
Aggression. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., Pagon, M., 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. The
Academy of Management Journal 45, 331–351.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., 2007. Destructive leadership behaviour:
a definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 207–216.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.E., Gonzalez-
Morales, M.G., Steiger-Mueller, M., 2010. Leader-member exchange and affective
organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organizational
embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 95, 1085–1103.
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., 1996. Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public
and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
5, 185–201.
Elias, R., 1986. The Politics of Victimization: Victims, Victimology, and Human Rights.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., 2001. Fairness theory: justice as accountability. In:
Greenberg, J., Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford
Business Books, Stanford, pp. 1–55.
Fox, S., Stallworth, L.E., 2005. Racial/ethnic bullying: exploring links between bullying
and racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66, 338–456.
Grandey, A., Kern, J., Frone, M., 2007. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders:
comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional
labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12, 63–79.
Supervision, Abusive 707
Hannah, S.T., Schaubroeck, J.M., Peng, A.C., Lord, R.G., Trevino, L., Kozlowski, S.,
Avolio, B., Dimotakis, N., Doty, J., 2013. Joint influences of individual and work
unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and behaviors: a moderated medi-
ation model. Journal of Applied Psychology 98, 579–592.
Harris, K.J., Harvey, P., Kacmar, K.M., 2011. Abusive supervisory reactions to
coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly 22, 1010–1023.
Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., Gillis, W.E., Martinko, M.J., 2014. Abusive supervision and the
entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly 25, 204–217.
Hershcovis, M.S., 2011. Incivility, social undermining, bullying. oh my!: A call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior 32, 499–519.
Hoobler, J.M., Brass, D.J., 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as
displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 1125–1133.
Hoobler, J.M., Hu, J., 2013. A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative
affect. The Leadership Quarterly 24, 256–269.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V., 2004. Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage, Thou-
sand Oaks.
Hu, C., Wu, T.Y., Wang, Y.H., 2011. Measurement equivalence/invariance of the
abusive supervision measure across workers from Taiwan and the United States.
The Journal of Psychology 145, 111–131.
Kermond, C.M.Y., Malonson, B., Schaubroeck, J.M., 2013a. Meta-analytic investi-
gation of abusive supervision in the workplace. Paper presented at the Annual
Congress of European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology.
Munster, Germany.
Kermond, C.M.Y., Schaubroeck, J.M., Malonson, B., 2013b. Supervisory abuse and
follower outcomes: a meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J., Kiewitz, C., Tang, R.L., 2010. In pursuit
of power: the role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between super-
visors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory
behavior. Journal of Research in Personality 44, 512–519.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J., Scott, K.D., Garcia, P.R.J.M.,
Tang, R.L., 2012. Sins of the parents: self-control as a buffer between supervisors’
previous experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of
abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly 23, 869–882.
Leiter, M.P., Laschinger, H.K.S., Day, A., Oore, D.G., 2011. The impact of civility
interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology 96, 1258–1274.
Lian, H., Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., 2012a. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate
the effects of abusive supervision? it depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied
Psychology 97, 107–123.
Lian, H., Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., 2012b. 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 117, 41–52.
Lian, H., Brown, D., Ferris, D.L., Liang, L., Keeping, L., Morrison, R. Abusive super-
vision and retaliation: a self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal,
forthcoming-a.
Lian, H., Ferris, D.L., Morrison, R., Brown, D.J. Blame it on the supervisor or the
subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming-b.
Lin, W., Wang, L., Chen, S., 2013. Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the
moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology: An Interna-
tional Review 62, 308–329.
Lind, E.A., Van den Bos, K., 2002. When fairness works: toward a general theory of
uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior 24, 181–223.
Liu, J., Kwan, H.K., Wu, L.Z., Wu, W.K., 2010. Abusive supervision and subordinate
supervisor-directed deviance: the moderating role of traditional values and the
mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 83, 835–856.
Liu, D., Liao, H., Loi, R., 2012. The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation
of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal 55, 1187–1212.
Lotz, S., Okimoto, T.G., Schlösser, T., Fetchenhauer, D., 2011. Punitive versus
compensatory reactions to injustice: emotional antecedents to third-party inter-
ventions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, 477–480.
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., Douglas, S.C., 2011. Perceptions of abusive
supervision: the role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly
22, 751–764.
Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J., Marinova, S.V., 2012.
A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology 65,
325–357.
 708 Supervision, Abusive
Mayer, D.M., Thau, S., Workman, K.M., Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., 2012. Leader
mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: integrating self-
uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117, 24–40.
Mitchell, M.S., Ambrose, M.L., 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and
the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology
92, 1159–1168.
Nandkeolyar, A.K., Shaffer, J.A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., Bagger, J., 2014. Surviving an
abusive supervisor: the joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies.
Journal of Applied Psychology 99, 138–150.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., Kaiser, R.B., 2007. The toxic triangle: destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly 18,
176–194.
Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P., 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive,
transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership behaviors. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 6, 172–197.
Peng, A.C., Schaubroeck, J.M., Li, Y. Social exchange implications of own and
coworkers’ experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal,
forthcoming.
Rafferty, A.E., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L., 2010. Losing sleep: examining the
cascading effects of supervisors’ experience of injustice on subordinates’
psychological health. Work & Stress 24, 36–55.
Restubog, S.L.D., Scott, K.L., Zagenczyk, T.J., 2011. When distress hits home: the
role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’
responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology 96, 713–729.
Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B., 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader member
exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied
Psychology 69, 428–436.
Schat, A.C.H., Frone, M.R., Kelloway, E.K., 2006. Prevalence of workplace aggression
in the U.S. workforce: findings from a national study. In: Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J.,
Hurrell, J.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Violence. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
pp. 47–89.
Schyns, B., Schilling, J., 2013. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis
of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 24, 138–158.
Shoss, M.K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S.L.D., 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 98,
158–168.
Skarlicki, D., Kulik, C., 2005. Third party reactions to employee mistreatment: a justice
perspective. In: Staw, B., Kramer, R. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior.
JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 183–230.
View publication stats
Tepper, B.J., 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B.J., 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and
research agenda. Journal of Management 33, 261–289.
Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C.Y., Hua, W., 2009. Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: a power/
dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109,
156–167.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., 2006. Procedural injustice,
victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology 59, 101–123.
Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., 2011. A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs
that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior 32, 487–498.
Tepper, B.J., Lambert, L.S., Henle, C.A., Giacalone, R.A., Duffy, M.K., 2008. Abusive
supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology
93, 721–732.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., Poortvliet, P.M., 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations:
the relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 840–847.
Thau, S., Bennett, R.J., Mitchell, M.S., Marrs, M.B., 2009. How management style
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance:
an uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 108, 79–92.
Thau, S., Mitchell, M.S., 2010. Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of
competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relation-
ship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 96,
1009–1031.
Turillo, C.J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J.J., Umphress, E.E., Gee, J.O., 2002. Is virtue its own
reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes 89, 839–865.
Umphress, E.E., Simmons, A.L., Folger, R., Ren, R., Bobocel, R., 2013. Observer
reactions to interpersonal injustice: the roles of perpetrator intent and victim
perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34, 327–349.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A., 1988. Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070.
Wu, T.Y., Hu, C.Y., 2009. Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion disposi-
tional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management 34, 143–169.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C.K., Miao, Q., 2012. Abusive supervision and work behaviors:
the mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33, 531–543.
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 1068–1076.